|
Post by The Verner on Jul 5, 2016 17:20:46 GMT
Just seen this online, disgusted! This is from Ollie Wilcox in reply to Mike, Jem and Rob quitting the board. He is Esteemed manager of our U18's floodlit team and son of the slide button presser! "I don't get annoyed very often, but what a bunch of wankers!! All 3 of these directors as well as 1 former director have only ever tried to make it a club about themselves and not a fans club! When they say a community club, these are the people who don't talk to anyone, not known in worcester however much they try and kid themselves!! They have been involved in discussions, but multiply times confidential club information found its way into the press due to them. Statements were made as directors of worcester to boost the personal gain and not at the best interest of the club! The club invite them into the board to help, but since they have joined they have never done anything but cause problems! I hope this finds its way to them cuz they don't have a clue what they are doing. Now I beg everyone not to fall into this trap because this could be the end of Worcester City if you believe there bullshit!! " Lets hope he is not teaching the youths English as well as football ! I think that is the stupidest thing to come out with. The 3 of them and by former director im guessing he means Rich, have supported and worked for WCFC before he was even born ! Personal Gain ? Hours and Hours of meetings with the Council, meetings with Supporters Direct, Highways Agency etc all to get a concrete Stadium Planning Application on the table. The Supporters and Shareholders deserve open and transparency about their club not "we cant say anything because of confidentiality agreements". I still haven't seen an alternative to becoming a CBS, maybe if there was something concrete that could challenge becoming a CBS people wouldnt be so annoyed !
|
|
steves
Squad Member
Posts: 180
|
Post by steves on Jul 5, 2016 17:42:24 GMT
Not sure what personal gain the three intended to make. Rich Widd I know has worked tirelessly for many years in the interest of the club, and Jem, like him or not, you can only ever say he has the best interest of the club at heart. Something really stinks here with the old board and I don't like it.
|
|
|
Post by greenman on Jul 5, 2016 17:50:19 GMT
Well Ollie Willcox, not have you shown a total ignorance of grammar and the English language which is reflected in your incompetent understanding of the Community Benefit Scheme. I would suggest you try and fully understand the whole situation and take a literacy course before you start espousing on subjects you obviously have no understanding of.
|
|
|
Post by thatloudbloke on Jul 5, 2016 18:26:12 GMT
well said greenman, who is this person who makes such stupid statements, i hope he has the courage to turn up on Thursday to explain himself, but i doubt he will, with idiots backing the incompetent board as it stands no wonder those who value the club have stepped down, these are the people who spend many hours in their own time trying to get WCFC to the right place, what do the board as it stands have as a way forward, nothing as they will not disclose & also spend lumps of money on solicitors who do not have a clue about football & use a venue at a high price, wasting the clubs funds or is it just what they want... Mike Rich Jem & Rob with the rest of the ST directors have my family & friends backing all the way & my son is a fifth generation of WCFC supporters, so we have been through this a few times before with different boards, but this is the most incompetent bunch as they stand at this time, living in cuckoo land, we need to get our club back to Worcester with or without this bunch of clowns...
|
|
|
Post by lancashirelad on Jul 5, 2016 18:35:43 GMT
The talk of groundsharing with the WRFC I find difficult to understand, I was always under the impression that the FA insisted on primacy of fixtures for any football club sharing with a rugby club.Surely this would be something WRFC would not give to WCFC. Should however it did come about what a soulless experience that would be stood in a ground built for 14000 spectators with just another few hundred for company at a football match. Well it seems to work ok at Wigan, and Wigan Warriors don't always give way to Wigan Athletic re. fixtures. They tend to sort it out bewteen themseleves with Athletic normally playing on Saturdays and Warriors on Sundays - if both at home the same weekend. So don't be fooled that WRFC don't want City to play at Six-Fields for that reason. theres much more to it than meets the eye.
|
|
|
Post by jupu on Jul 5, 2016 19:29:52 GMT
I believe Wasps now own the Ricoh and Coventry City play there as tenants - albeit they want to move on and find a home of their own. So I don't think this primacy of tenure issue is as binding as it once was. I look at it this way - Warriors are investing in a facility that they want to get a return from. If they're looking for a major hirer City fit the bill. It's as close as we can get to coming back to Worcester if Perdiswell fails.
|
|
|
Post by Tim Munslow on Jul 5, 2016 19:31:58 GMT
Talk of Cecil Duckworth having approached City is nonsense: he has categorically denied ever having approached WCFC.
However, he may no longer be the person in charge: isn't he the club president now? That's more of an honorary position.
I'm not sure the rules are the same for clubs already in the Football League and ground-sharing and those trying to enter the Football League.
But is ground-sharing at Warriors the "Plan B" being talked about? Or some other scheme? If we're not being told how can we, as shareholders, make an informed decision?
|
|
|
Post by thesecondjack on Jul 5, 2016 19:40:16 GMT
|
|
dcx
Squad Member
Posts: 289
|
Post by dcx on Jul 5, 2016 19:43:58 GMT
Whilst obviously better than playing in exile until the club goes into liquidation, playing at Sixways would be an incredibly soul destroying experience. If you thought there was no atmosphere at Kiddy with 600 people in a 6,000 capacity (?) stadium, it would be like a morgue in a comparitively huge all seater stadium less than 10% full.
Another thing is we would still be paying rent to someone, albeit a rugby club in the same City. We would be financially no better off and have no increase in assets. The club will still be loss making and will continue to be that way until the money runs out in 2 or 3 years time.
I'm probably giving the Board too much credit but I am guessing their "plan" is in fact a pipe dream whereby we relocate to Sixways, amend the articles to remove the restriction on share ownership, and then look for a wealthy investor to take over the club. Cecil is 80 this year and that ship has sailed, and last time I checked there were no Sheikhs rolling around Worcester in gold plated Rollers...
|
|
dcx
Squad Member
Posts: 289
|
Post by dcx on Jul 5, 2016 19:51:50 GMT
Talk of Cecil Duckworth having approached City is nonsense: he has categorically denied ever having approached WCFC. However, he may no longer be the person in charge: isn't he the club president now? That's more of an honorary position. I'm not sure the rules are the same for clubs already in the Football League and ground-sharing and those trying to enter the Football League. But is ground-sharing at Warriors the "Plan B" being talked about? Or some other scheme? If we're not being told how can we, as shareholders, make an informed decision? Jim O'Toole is the CEO of Warriors now, but doesn't seem keen on us sharing their turf (see Jack's post above). A lot of that seems centred around the grass pitch condition, which is slightly moot if they are having an artificial surface. City wouldn't train on it either I am guessing, just as they would never have trained on the SGL pitch. We would almost certainly be playing on a Sunday though if it were to happen.
|
|
|
Post by jupu on Jul 5, 2016 19:53:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on Jul 5, 2016 20:03:34 GMT
For the umpteenth time....... - Primacy of tenure can be overcome regarding fixtures - Cecil Duckworth has never approached WCFC in the past - Cecil Duckworth is not now the owner of the Warriors. The Majority owner is now Hockley Investments ( Dave Allen who made his money via logistics giant DHL ) - The Warriors position as stated above was when they had the grass pitch and applies to the situation then. The grass pitch is in the process of being replaced by a 4G pitch, so that it can be utilised specifically to make money from non rugby activity. - Jim O'Toole is still CEO at the Warriors and said regarding the new pitch www.skysports.com/rugby-union/news/12547/10233577/worcester-warriors-to-install-artificial-pitch-at-sixwaysTherefore Sixways is very much on the table...........it is the Directors plan B.......perhaps we could all have a drink in the Hallmark bar ?
|
|
|
Post by auldreekie on Jul 5, 2016 20:40:17 GMT
I have interpreted the National League rules to say:
The National League club’s ground where they play their National League matches can be shared with another National League club or another club (including a club engaged in another sport) providing, where sharing with a football club the National League club or club playing in the most senior competition has priority of fixtures at all times and where sharing with a club engaged in another sport, the National League club has priority of fixtures.
The National League club as at 31 March in any year must either:
(i) Own the freehold of the ground where they will play their National League matches, or
(ii) Have a lease for the ground where they will play their National League matches that extends uninterrupted for a minimum of the next Playing Season, or
(iii) Possess an agreement for the use of the ground where they will play their National League matches that is acceptable to The Football Association, following consultation with the National League.
National League Clubs with ground share agreements must arrange for home matches to be played on Friday, Saturday or Sunday. [NOTE - this bit is confusing! Does it means two NL clubs sharing or one NL club sharing with someone else? You can read it both ways]
If a clash of fixtures occurs with the sharing National League club and for any reason a match is unable to be played on a Saturday, the match must be played on either the day before, i.e. on Friday or the day after, i.e. on Sunday. If National League clubs are unable to agree on the date then it will be played on the Sunday unless the Board decides otherwise. The decision of the Board shall be final and binding.
So the rules do not appear to be concerned with primacy of tenure but primacy of fixtures. So summarising this "where sharing with a club engaged in another sport, the National League club has priority of fixtures and must arrange for home matches to be played on Friday, Saturday or Sunday." So "priority of fixtures" requirements does have some flexibility for an agreement to be reached with a landlord club in another sport.
|
|
|
Post by Dodger on Jul 5, 2016 21:02:20 GMT
I'm prepared to give Mr Hampson some credence when he states that City can last 3/4 more years by carrying on as now.
The trouble is time will run out to instigate any plan other than Perdiswell and Community ownership. Suggestions of playing at Sixways just mean we 'ground share' and pay rent to an already finacially sound(?) organisation. We may as well ground share at Timbuctoo for all the benefits we will see over these remaining 3/4 years of WCFC's life.
Any shareholder considering supporting the 'H' team need to realise that once the good ship WCFC starts to sink, their shares will be worthless. The only option for them then, will be to have the share certificate framed and kept on the mantelpiece so that in years to come they can tell their grand kids they used to have shares in WCFC. They needn't be surprised when those grand kids say "WCFC?........who were they then?".
Dodger.
|
|
|
Post by kentenigmawcfc on Jul 5, 2016 21:10:16 GMT
If it is at 'Sixways' I cannot see financially how the Board can view this as a positive step. How can the Club generate an income stream? We would presumably be paying rent, still need stewards etc, which all still need paying for, as they are now. Nice though I am sure those facilities are they will be soulless for most games and I really cannot see any advantage for the survival of the Club. At best this is a tantalising stop gap before the inevitable. Since the 'Inner Board' kept trying to pick holes in the 'Trust' plan without any real success, I hope they will be providing shareholders with a full costed feasibility study containing how they can and will generate income for the Club that can put into the Bank. We haven't been able to do that at 'Aggborough' and probably won't at 'Bromsgrove' so cannot see 'Sixways' being any better if that is what they are working on. I am still suspicious that they are not looking at merging with 'Bromsgrove' given they have a former Board member there and build a new joint stadium somewhere near 'Bromsgrove' station with City very much the junior partners with little money to contribute and the sale of 'Bromsgroves' ground funding the bulk of it. No doubt what ever plan the dinosaurs dream up it won't involve modernising the constitution of WCFC to allow majority voting win after all they couldn't let us plebs and mugs make the decisions that they don't like. No the minority dictatorship won't allow themselves to lose control just in case the majority are right and could do a better job. Well I know one thing we couldn't have done any worse over the last 35 years+ that have been watching City as and when I could. There are a number of capable shareholders I think would and could have made a far better job of it but are not welcome at the dictatorship table for fear they might have alternative ideas from the written mantra of this all but masonic lodge fiefdum our lords and masters have created for themselves. No I don't see any benefit if this is their plan, it's just more of the same, so the clock is ticking and Board continue to lose money. 'Long live the Board'. P.S. if you (the Board) do plan to run the Club into the ground, make sure all shareholders, other than the Board and old Board driving this strategy, get paid first and in full, I don't see why shareholders should be out of pocket for your dogmatic management failings, while you no doubt are plotting to make sure non of you who caused this mess are out of pocket.
|
|
|
Post by Dodger on Jul 5, 2016 21:17:40 GMT
Unfortunately, the pecking order for payouts when a company goes t*ts up means 'ordinary' shareholders are at the back of the queue..........and typically get nowt!
Dodger.
|
|
|
Post by kentenigmawcfc on Jul 5, 2016 21:18:20 GMT
Apologies for one or two missing words or letters above as getting weary and been up since 4.30 this morning but hope you can catch my drift.
|
|
|
Post by kentenigmawcfc on Jul 5, 2016 21:23:40 GMT
I know that all to well Dodger. No I would just hate to find out that this little fiefdum had snaffled some money away to make sure they had their money back while the rest of us are out of pocket.
I know I shouldn't think like that because I don't think they are really that corrupt, foolish and misguided yes, but corrupt no, but there could be a bad apple or two when the finishing line comes into focus.
|
|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on Jul 5, 2016 21:26:53 GMT
Re moving to Sixways..............Who said it would be playing on the main pitch ? Jim O' Toole, the Warriors CEO stated........
"This exciting development not only allows us to play more rugby at all levels on our biggest physical asset but also allows us to establish new commercial revenue streams such as concerts, festivals and other non-rugby events."
If more rugby at all levels is played on the new artificial pitch, why would they then need the 4 or 5 grass pitches that they've also got ?
Moving to the Sixways site is not the same as playing on the main pitch !
|
|
|
Post by kentenigmawcfc on Jul 5, 2016 21:40:27 GMT
Well I didn't as I was aware of the other training pitches they were being built away from the stadium and I think I read at least one of those was going to be 3G or 4G and wondered if that could be an answer because I was under the impression we could not use the main stadium as it would damage the chances of the Rugby Club staging international matches. I just thought when people started mentioning playing in the main stadium that perhaps somebody knew something I didn't, as not being that interested in Rugby I don't take much of an interest in developments at 'Sixways'.
|
|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on Jul 5, 2016 21:43:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kentenigmawcfc on Jul 5, 2016 21:47:00 GMT
Thanks my friend, I'll take a look at that tomorrow when I am not so weary
|
|
|
Post by The Verner on Jul 5, 2016 21:51:52 GMT
If it is at 'Sixways' I cannot see financially how the Board can view this as a positive step. How can the Club generate an income stream? We would presumably be paying rent, still need stewards etc, which all still need paying for, as they are now. Nice though I am sure those facilities are they will be soulless for most games and I really cannot see any advantage for the survival of the Club. At best this is a tantalising stop gap before the inevitable. Since the 'Inner Board' kept trying to pick holes in the 'Trust' plan without any real success, I hope they will be providing shareholders with a full costed feasibility study containing how they can and will generate income for the Club that can put into the Bank. We haven't been able to do that at 'Aggborough' and probably won't at 'Bromsgrove' so cannot see 'Sixways' being any better if that is what they are working on. I am still suspicious that they are not looking at merging with 'Bromsgrove' given they have a former Board member there and build a new joint stadium somewhere near 'Bromsgrove' station with City very much the junior partners with little money to contribute and the sale of 'Bromsgroves' ground funding the bulk of it. No doubt what ever plan the dinosaurs dream up it won't involve modernising the constitution of WCFC to allow majority voting win after all they couldn't let us plebs and mugs make the decisions that they don't like. No the minority dictatorship won't allow themselves to lose control just in case the majority are right and could do a better job. Well I know one thing we couldn't have done any worse over the last 35 years+ that have been watching City as and when I could. There are a number of capable shareholders I think would and could have made a far better job of it but are not welcome at the dictatorship table for fear they might have alternative ideas from the written mantra of this all but masonic lodge fiefdum our lords and masters have created for themselves. No I don't see any benefit if this is their plan, it's just more of the same, so the clock is ticking and Board continue to lose money. 'Long live the Board'. P.S. if you (the Board) do plan to run the Club into the ground, make sure all shareholders, other than the Board and old Board driving this strategy, get paid first and in full, I don't see why shareholders should be out of pocket for your dogmatic management failings, while you no doubt are plotting to make sure non of you who caused this mess are out of pocket. Kenty, RE Bromsgrove, they have nothing to sell ! If i remember correctly the Victoria Ground is leased from the council, this is something that required looking into prior to Groundsharebeing signed. The ground is also asset protected and must be used as a sporting venue or land, aka the council cannot just kick them out and build houses on it. The council want to see the club doing well and paying its rent.
|
|
|
Post by kentenigmawcfc on Jul 6, 2016 6:41:10 GMT
Hi Kev, Many thanks for putting me in the picture about that one. This is one of the problems for me living so far away as I am not in touch and up to date with the local knowledge and to be honest if our Club had been run correctly I shouldn't of had to have been. Far too many mistakes have been made by the Club and us shareholders should not have had to be scrambling around for unforthcoming answers and explanations as to why we are where we are. The Board instead find ways to evade telling us anything substantive while trying to deflect attention and blame away towards the Trust, who in reality have been the exact opposite of the Board and what they are saying about them and have acted in Trust members interests to find a solution to this continuing spiral of failure by successive Boards. I had high hopes that under Anthony's stewardship the Club would break from the failing mould and would embrace the Trust plan, as I witnessed back at SGL, however it look like the old boy network of Board and ex Board members reign supreme and despite shareholders being opposed to what they are now doing, the minority Board and ex Board shareholders can still pull all the strings and dictate the continued course of the sinking 'Titanic' that is WCFC. The iceberg was struck when the failings of the Nunnery Way project became apparent and the Club has been sinking ever since. The difference is there won't be any 'Carpathia' to rescue anyone as the Board sent the 'Trust' now saying they don't need help, when in actuality that is exactly what they need! So sorry Anthony you have let me and all shareholders down who had a restored faith with the Board and you at the helm but now see clearly there has been no change at all.
|
|
|
Post by Croc on Jul 6, 2016 9:05:17 GMT
Just seen this online, disgusted! This is from Ollie Wilcox in reply to Mike, Jem and Rob quitting the board. He is Esteemed manager of our U18's floodlit team and son of the slide button presser! "I don't get annoyed very often, but what a bunch of wankers!! All 3 of these directors as well as 1 former director have only ever tried to make it a club about themselves and not a fans club! When they say a community club, these are the people who don't talk to anyone, not known in worcester however much they try and kid themselves!! They have been involved in discussions, but multiply times confidential club information found its way into the press due to them. Statements were made as directors of worcester to boost the personal gain and not at the best interest of the club! The club invite them into the board to help, but since they have joined they have never done anything but cause problems! I hope this finds its way to them cuz they don't have a clue what they are doing. Now I beg everyone not to fall into this trap because this could be the end of Worcester City if you believe there bullshit!! " Where the hell did that rant appear online?
|
|
|
Post by kentenigmawcfc on Jul 6, 2016 9:24:38 GMT
Well coz he finks hez like wiked in it! God help us if this ignorant chump is the future his brain is obviously in his feet not his head.
|
|
bj
Squad Member
Posts: 182
|
Post by bj on Jul 6, 2016 10:22:46 GMT
I cannot imagine that the Warriers are at all interested in doing business with WCFC. A limited company with a woeful Board, angry shareholders, depleting fan base, no assets, no sponsorship (apart from the marvellous and loyal Pinches Transport)and losing £100k a season. Why would any forward thinking business want to get involved? One scenario might be that once WCFC fails a Worcester Warriers FC will be formed. Based on one of their training pitches. With a 5-8 year plan to get into the football league. Eventually this could bring more punters visiting Sixways, more food and drink sold, merchandising, increased profile etc. Similar path to Hereford but not fan run. Season ticket holders for the Warriers could get into the footer free. Gates of 1000+ from the start. Just a thought!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2016 10:40:48 GMT
"Just a thought!" - and a more hopeful scenario than we have at present. I'd prefer the model proposed by the Trust though.
|
|
|
Post by cityman on Jul 6, 2016 11:49:28 GMT
If it is at 'Sixways' I cannot see financially how the Board can view this as a positive step. How can the Club generate an income stream? We would presumably be paying rent, still need stewards etc, which all still need paying for, as they are now. Nice though I am sure those facilities are they will be soulless for most games and I really cannot see any advantage for the survival of the Club. At best this is a tantalising stop gap before the inevitable. Since the 'Inner Board' kept trying to pick holes in the 'Trust' plan without any real success, I hope they will be providing shareholders with a full costed feasibility study containing how they can and will generate income for the Club that can put into the Bank. We haven't been able to do that at 'Aggborough' and probably won't at 'Bromsgrove' so cannot see 'Sixways' being any better if that is what they are working on. I am still suspicious that they are not looking at merging with 'Bromsgrove' given they have a former Board member there and build a new joint stadium somewhere near 'Bromsgrove' station with City very much the junior partners with little money to contribute and the sale of 'Bromsgroves' ground funding the bulk of it. No doubt what ever plan the dinosaurs dream up it won't involve modernising the constitution of WCFC to allow majority voting win after all they couldn't let us plebs and mugs make the decisions that they don't like. No the minority dictatorship won't allow themselves to lose control just in case the majority are right and could do a better job. Well I know one thing we couldn't have done any worse over the last 35 years+ that have been watching City as and when I could. There are a number of capable shareholders I think would and could have made a far better job of it but are not welcome at the dictatorship table for fear they might have alternative ideas from the written mantra of this all but masonic lodge fiefdum our lords and masters have created for themselves. No I don't see any benefit if this is their plan, it's just more of the same, so the clock is ticking and Board continue to lose money. 'Long live the Board'. P.S. if you (the Board) do plan to run the Club into the ground, make sure all shareholders, other than the Board and old Board driving this strategy, get paid first and in full, I don't see why shareholders should be out of pocket for your dogmatic management failings, while you no doubt are plotting to make sure non of you who caused this mess are out of pocket. Kenty, RE Bromsgrove, they have nothing to sell ! If i remember correctly the Victoria Ground is leased from the council, this is something that required looking into prior to Groundsharebeing signed. The ground is also asset protected and must be used as a sporting venue or land, aka the council cannot just kick them out and build houses on it. The council want to see the club doing well and paying its rent.
|
|
steves
Squad Member
Posts: 180
|
Post by steves on Jul 6, 2016 19:57:04 GMT
I'm struggling to find the venue for tomorrow night anywhere?
Thx Steve
|
|