|
Post by briandamaged on Jul 8, 2016 10:59:52 GMT
With regard to the possibility of an AFC Worcester City, how far down the football pyramid would such a club have to start? I'm just curious to know. Unsure on the level but around Bromsgrove and Hereford leagues would be about right. We would hopefully be in a high enough league to still be in the FA Cup. Yes, the top four sides in MFL1 take part in the FA Cup. I'm Just waiting for the draw to take place in the next hour!
|
|
|
Post by Croc on Jul 8, 2016 11:17:17 GMT
With regard to the possibility of an AFC Worcester City, how far down the football pyramid would such a club have to start? I'm just curious to know. Unsure on the level but around Bromsgrove and Hereford leagues would be about right. We would hopefully be in a high enough league to still be in the FA Cup. We would come back in the MFL (as it replaced the Midland Combination - and that's where Leamington came back in)
|
|
|
Post by citytoon on Jul 8, 2016 12:07:59 GMT
Perdiswell is now more important than ever. Everyone should focus on it. Completely agree with this.
Correct me if I am wrong but the outcome of the planning application should not be affected by the status of the club i.e. whether or not WCFC are a CBS club. The application and the question of use of the Council land are two very distinct issues in terms of the approvals required. If the planning application is approved you would hope that the board wake up and realise that the Club need to be a CBS club to enable the land at Perdiswell to be used for a community stadium.
Hampson did after all state that the board has consistently agreed that a change to its structure may be beneficial for the club in the long term but that consideration can only be given once the club has clarity about its future options for the development of a stadium in Worcester.
|
|
|
Post by creaner on Jul 8, 2016 12:31:10 GMT
Perdiswell is now more important than ever. Everyone should focus on it. Completely agree with this.
Correct me if I am wrong but the outcome of the planning application should not be affected by the status of the club i.e. whether or not WCFC are a CBS club. The application and the question of use of the Council land are two very distinct issues in terms of the approvals required. If the planning application is approved you would hope that the board wake up and realise that the Club need to be a CBS club to enable the land at Perdiswell to be used for a community stadium.
Hampson did after all state that the board has consistently agreed that a change to its structure may be beneficial for the club in the long term but that consideration can only be given once the club has clarity about its future options for the development of a stadium in Worcester. That was the Catch 22 point I was trying to make last night. Hampson says wait till everything has changed then think about change, at great cost to Birmingham soliciotors no doubt, or go the community route the trsut suggest and ask WCC about the land at Perdiswell. This from the FA Guide to Transfers: the government has recognised that there may be circumstances where it is appropriate for a local authority to dispose of land at below market value – known as an ‘under value’. These circumstances are when such a disposal will secure a benefit to the community which can measured by an improvement in economic, social and environmental well being. This is known as ‘community asset transfer’. In some circumstances it means that an asset can be disposed for very little or even no consideration. Local authorities are not obliged to undertake community asset transfer but many do as they recognise that transferring assets to another owner is likely to increase the investment and sustainability of that asset.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2016 12:37:25 GMT
I can't see the council dealing with the trust to provide a home for a club that isn't the "official" Worcester City.
|
|
|
Post by creaner on Jul 8, 2016 12:41:41 GMT
I can't see the council dealing with the trust to provide a home for a club that isn't the "official" Worcester City. Why not? Perdiswell was a trust initiative. The "joint" bit was only the club contributing to a portion of the cost. Why not build the stadium as a trust with all the community elements- after all we're already a CBS a can do that ourselves. If the club is still around they might want to lease it from us!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2016 13:21:55 GMT
I just suspect that decision making bodies find any excuse not to make decisions. A new club playing at perdiswell would be wonderful.
Am renewing Trust membership asap.
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Jul 8, 2016 13:46:54 GMT
Maybe the Chairman should also read Worcester City Councils guidance on Community Asset Transfer Bids, which is in line with all other councils
Who can make a nomination?
We will only accept requests to include assets on the list from eligible community groups. Eligible groups must have a local connection to the land or property they wish to nominate and be one of the following types of organisations:
Parish Council
Unincorporated community groups with at least 21 members who are registered to vote within Worcester City.
A neighbourhood forum, set up in accordance with section 61F of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999
A charity.
A community interest company
A company limited by guarantee.
An industrial and provident society.
We will not accept nominations from any other bodies.
So last night Hampson & Co, by losing the one resolution that even they wanted to go through has managed to scupper plans for Worcester City Football Club Ltd. at Perdiswell! Well Done!
|
|
|
Post by Croc on Jul 8, 2016 14:23:59 GMT
|
|
dragon
First Teamer
Posts: 355
|
Post by dragon on Jul 8, 2016 14:44:18 GMT
Jem, do you mean that WCFC Ltd made the application and not the trust ? I thought that there was an `arms length` association between the two bodies to cover the situation you highlight.
|
|
|
Post by creaner on Jul 8, 2016 16:01:11 GMT
The highlight of the meeting for me was Hampson saying the board couldn't support the trust changes as they are "too ambitious".Well if listening to fans, taking expert advice and coming up with a cogent and feasible business plan plus offering a way to keep the club alive is being ambitious then guilty as charged your honour. As I said ambition has been sadly lacking at this club for too long.
|
|
|
Post by briandamaged on Jul 8, 2016 16:16:55 GMT
I just suspect that decision making bodies find any excuse not to make decisions. A new club playing at perdiswell would be wonderful. Am renewing Trust membership asap. I work in Worcester with a bunch of City season ticket holders, I know how aghast they are at what's happened. Although my heart belongs to the Victoria Ground, I've joined the Trust will happily get involved and will be urging them to do the same. Football in Worcester NEEDS to survive.
|
|
|
Post by kentenigmawcfc on Jul 8, 2016 16:36:52 GMT
Here, Here, Rob. Far too much waffling statements espousing from the 'Inner Board'. I'd still been keen for a public meeting of Board past and present, shareholders, fans and press, if not indeed a legal public enquiry to discuss the failure of the Nunnery Way project, the failure to take the £7+ million from 'Careys' for SGL when it was offered and moved out there and then, with more money in the Bank than we actually achieved by dithering or being greedy. Who did what, what due diligence they did to confirm exactly what was going to be built at NW and by whom, as what shareholders were lead to believe by the then Board turned out to be nothing more than a field with a rope fence around it, not anything like the stadium we were conned into believing it was going to be. That was Economical with the truth if I'm kind, down right deceit and mismanagement on an inexcusable scale given the amount of money it cost the Club and thereby shareholders like me who bought shares. Too late to get the money back now but feel the people responsible have never been made fully accountable and are possibly unfit to run a business. Then last night we had out current chairman trying to decry the efforts of the Trust which I remember him be in support of back at SGL but has now started back tracking and changed his tune.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2016 17:06:16 GMT
As far as recall regarding the sale of SGL, and correct me if I'm wrong: The club were offered £8million+ for the ground, but Hallmark turned this down because he wanted to deal with Careys. (We have witnesses to this.) Why he did this we can only guess. Surely there were no backhanders involved?
Then the deal is struck with Careys for £7 million+, but with a clause that if the number of houses Careys planned to build was lowered, the price would also drop. Guess what? That's exactly what happened. I've talked to property lawyers since then and they all said that such a clause is NEVER included in land deals. Sometimes one is included if the number of houses built increases - then the price rises, but it NEVER falls. Unless, of course, it's a contract overseen by Boddy and Hallmark.
So the sale price plummeted to £3.5 million i.e. £4.5 million lower than the original offer. The "purchase" of the Nunnery Way site is another, equally distressing, story - and even more twisted and crazy.
I'm sure others can correct my story if I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Post by The Verner on Jul 8, 2016 17:46:13 GMT
Did the club ever look at these apparent funds we would see when each house / flat was sold on SGL?...forgive me, cannot think of the actual term they used.
I remember at the AGM a shareholder asked that very question and the answer was "we will look into this"?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2016 17:54:11 GMT
Overage?
|
|
|
Post by The Verner on Jul 8, 2016 18:07:38 GMT
|
|
dragon
First Teamer
Posts: 355
|
Post by dragon on Jul 8, 2016 18:20:34 GMT
I was far away at the time but wasn`t Hampson the guy brought in to broker peace between the `old` Board and the activists who saw where Boddy & Co were leading the Club ? He obviously impressed enough to have retained the faith of the `new` Board although I hear his superciliousness grates on all involved. I`m hardly surprised.
What we have now is `a bugger`s muddle` of which no one can be proud. Time for yet another peacemaker to appear. it seems !
|
|
|
Post by greenman on Jul 8, 2016 18:23:26 GMT
Did the club ever look at these apparent funds we would see when each house / flat was sold on SGL?...forgive me, cannot think of the actual term they used. I remember at the AGM a shareholder asked that very question and the answer was "we will look into this"? Yes I asked the question regarding who was monitoring any overage from Careys for the build at St Georges Lane. The reply from our Chairman 'no one, and would I like to look at it'. As a layman with no experience in this field it flabbered my ghast. So as far as I can understand we were relying on Careys to be honest and upright about the issue. As I told the Board when I was a Director prior to my resignation there is no one here with the experience to deal with these people and we will end up being shafted.
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Jul 8, 2016 18:29:46 GMT
Jem, do you mean that WCFC Ltd made the application and not the trust ? I thought that there was an `arms length` association between the two bodies to cover the situation you highlight. This has nothing to do with the planning application, this is about community asset transfer. The application might well be approved, but there would be no way of obtaining the land, couldn't lease it via asset transfer as the club does not qualify under the present constitution, and can't buy it, as the club can't raise finance under the present constitution, other than loan financing. So in order to progress at Perdiswell, the constitution would need to be changed, but the Board don't want to do that until we are progressing at Perdiswell.
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Jul 8, 2016 18:32:41 GMT
I was far away at the time but wasn`t Hampson the guy brought in to broker peace between the `old` Board and the activists who saw where Boddy & Co were leading the Club ? He obviously impressed enough to have retained the faith of the `new` Board although I hear his superciliousness grates on all involved. I`m hardly surprised. What we have now is `a bugger`s muddle` of which no one can be proud. Time for yet another peacemaker to appear. it seems ! No, Hampson was parachuted in by Hallmark when Boddy was getting weary, to finish the SMD / Careys task.
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Jul 8, 2016 18:33:49 GMT
Did the club ever look at these apparent funds we would see when each house / flat was sold on SGL?...forgive me, cannot think of the actual term they used. I remember at the AGM a shareholder asked that very question and the answer was "we will look into this"? Yes I asked the question regarding who was monitoring any overage from Careys for the build at St Georges Lane. The reply from our Chairman 'no one, and would I like to look at it'. As a layman with no experience in this field it flabbered my ghast. So as far as I can understand we were relying on Careys to be honest and upright about the issue. As I told the Board when I was a Director prior to my resignation there is no one here with the experience to deal with these people and we will end up being shafted. It was looked into, we arent even close to qualifying for any overage at SGL
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2016 18:34:08 GMT
I think you will find that Hallmark appeared on the scene (or rather behind the scene) long before the "uprising". He took charge of the planning for the move, which was odd as he had nothing to do with the club. He was't a director even - that came later. However, chairman Boddy appeared everything Hallmark asked of him. So an outsider drove the club over the cliff. Why? Could there have been financial irregularities?
Probably the answer to that is the same as to the question "why don't the current board support plans to rescue the club"?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2016 19:07:16 GMT
And I meant to add - who appointed Hampson to the board? Hallmark. A nice cosy club.
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Jul 8, 2016 19:23:26 GMT
I suspect that some board members had their fingers in the pie,and decided to vote against the trust ln case they were found out
|
|
dragon
First Teamer
Posts: 355
|
Post by dragon on Jul 8, 2016 19:29:35 GMT
Thank you, Jem, for correcting my impression of how things happened although Hampson seems to have charmed the `new` board for a long time as he has remained in the chair unopposed it seems !
How could you have EVER trusted an emissary of Mr Hallmark ?
|
|
althom
Squad Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by althom on Jul 8, 2016 21:04:54 GMT
Seem to remember going to a presentation given by Hallmark for a further sponsorship request in July 1998, prior to a friendly against WBA. Not sure what his role at the club was at the time, but he was obviously looking for a"Patsy" and found one eventually in Boddy!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2016 21:12:19 GMT
How could you have EVER trusted an emissary of Mr Hallmark ? Not many of us did, I confronted Hampson face to face at Eastleigh, but how can you shift him and others off the board when they control the shares?
|
|
|
Post by The Verner on Jul 8, 2016 21:47:11 GMT
Just gone live on the website - The Chairmans EGM Statement.
Chairman’s Statement to General Meeting on 7th July 2016 A request for a General Meeting was received on 19th May asking that 4 special resolutions be considered by Shareholders. In order to ensure that the process was properly and independently considered, Anthony Collins Solicitors were instructed to manage the process. The Board is grateful to David and Rebecca for the work they have undertaken on everyone’s behalf. In essence, the motions seek to make changes to the Club’s Articles of Association to lift the current capital limit on individual shareholding, make provision for nil paid shares and remove the requirements that new shares be offered to existing shareholders in the first instance. The motions also seek to require the Club to allot any existing unsold shares to the Supporters’ Trust, presumably without payment, thereby allowing them to become the majority shareholder in the Club. The Trust’s reasoning for doing so is because they believe that a Community Model (such as a Community Benefit Society) is the best way forward and will help to persuade Worcester City Council to transfer the land necessary in the event that the joint planning application is successful. The Board has consistently agreed that a change to its ownership structure may be beneficial in the longer term. However, it believes that this consideration can only be given once the Club has clarity about its future options for the development of a stadium in Worcester. It remains committed to the joint planning application with the Trust for the development of a community stadium at Perdiswell. However, the ongoing delays in getting the planning application heard and the challenges the City Council will have in delivering the land (regardless of the ownership structure of the Club) are a very real concern. This is fuelled by the election pledges given by local politicians at the last elections which and the fact that the Club and Trust are now engaged in a confidential discussions with the City Council seeking to identify alternative sites for the Club. The principle of Community Ownership, as advocated by the Trust, has been the subject of discussion by the Board over a number of years and the Board has been clear on its position. It has consistently asked for clarification on a number of points. The potential tax implications both on the Club and individual shareholders remains a legitimate concern and the clarity it has sought from the Trust has not been forthcoming to date – despite assertions in the media that it has.
The model brought forward by the Trust envisaged the current Board remaining in place and the creation of an Operational Board to oversee the running of the Club. The Board has consistently said that this is not a workable solution and this has been demonstrated by the animosity which has been apparent in recent weeks. There has been a suggestion that conversion to a Community Benefit Society will result in a number of grants becoming available. This is at odds with the Capital Funding Survey undertaken by Sporting Assets on the Trust’s behalf. Finally, despite a suggestion that they should do so, there has been no attempt to formally test the appetite of supporters and businesses to support this model by investing in community shares. The Board has consistently argued that the target contained in the Trust’s Perdiswell Plan is overly ambitious. Instead, Shareholders are simply being asked to gift the ownership of the Club to the Supporters’ Trust as they believe that their model is the only way forward. Without clarity on its concerns, the Board is unable to support the resolutions as it does not believe that they are in the best interests of the Club and its shareholders. The Board is consistently being accused of not having a plan. This is factually incorrect. Its short term plan is contained in its business plan which was approved by all Directors (including those who have recently resigned). In terms of the medium and longer term, it is continuing to evaluate all possible options to bring the Club back to the City as quickly as possible. However, Shareholders must appreciate that it cannot conduct its business in public and via the media. It will however continue to pursue all avenues and will keep shareholders informed at the appropriate time. The Trust on the other hand suggest that they have a long term plan (Perdiswell) but is silent on how their model would secure the short term future of the Football Club until the scheme came to fruition. I would re-iterate the Board’s position as stated earlier - The Board has consistently agreed that a change to its ownership structure may be beneficial in the longer term. However, it believes that this consideration can only be given once the Club has clarity about its future options for the development of a stadium in Worcester. As your Chairman I am genuinely saddened by the position the Club now finds itself in. The divide between the Board and Trust is regrettable and one that must cause dismay amongst the Club’s Supporters. The Board has expressed its views on the resolutions but we must be clear that any decision rests with shareholders. Once shareholders have expressed their view, all parties have a duty to respect their decision and have a responsibility to put their difference apart and work collectively to implement the wishes of shareholders.
|
|
|
Post by thesecondjack on Jul 8, 2016 23:56:03 GMT
One thing to note from the EGM was that a certain ex city manager was in the audience - anyone know if he's free to manage a new born club?
|
|