|
|
Post by zeke on Aug 17, 2016 15:19:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Dodger on Aug 17, 2016 15:38:51 GMT
So the working party (chaired by the Council's MD) have made a thorough analysis of several sites that could potentially be used as a new home ground for the Club.
This obviously means that any hope that Perdiswell will be successful in it's planning application is now quickly fading away.
Whilst on the surface, any planning decisions/considerations will be shown to be based on facts and impartiality, you can bet those on the planning committee will be more concerned about their own personal futures once Sheena Ramsey has had a quite word in their ears lobbyed for the alternative sites. After all, Perdiswell is only on the table on the basis for WCFC's new home, so no WCFC at Perdiswell means no need to approve planning.
Once the Perdiswell application has 'died', watch how quickly the new housing alternative for Perdiswell gets through.
Dodger.
|
|
|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on Aug 17, 2016 17:19:29 GMT
Whilst I hold out little hope of anything meaningful being achieved, sadly it's starting to look like our only hope.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Aug 18, 2016 10:03:25 GMT
What a statement! It says absolutely nothing at all!! That's the statement you issue when you have no statement to issue!
Dodger, what you are suggesting can't happen, the planning application will stand or fall on material planning facts. The planning application is not the issue here, even if it goes through, the issue under discussion is the land transfer.
|
|
|
|
Post by downthelane on Aug 18, 2016 18:50:08 GMT
That's the statement of a Council holding meeting after meeting so to be able to tell the public they are helping to bring home the football club when really they are just fudging making any sort of decision.
|
|
rob
Reserve Teamer
Posts: 79
|
Post by rob on Aug 18, 2016 20:23:49 GMT
Was it drafted by Sir Humphrey Appleby?
|
|
|
|
Post by creaner on Aug 18, 2016 22:18:33 GMT
Was it drafted by Sir Humphrey Appleby? Yes Minister. |
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Aug 19, 2016 11:49:12 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jupu on Aug 19, 2016 12:20:12 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by cloud on Aug 19, 2016 12:21:33 GMT
Hampson also revealed he gave the trust the chance to gain an “increasing influence” in the club by securing a “portfolio of shares”.
“Alongside my offer to stand down, I also outlined my thoughts on further amendments to the club’s constitution, which I felt could help the supporters’ trust to build a portfolio of influence in the club,” Hampson said.
“This involved the removal of the individual limit on the number of shares held by an individual so that shareholders could gift their shares to the trust if they so desired.
“Such a proposal would also allow the trust to purchase some of the 140,000 shares in the club.”
However, Crean insisted there was “no point” gaining a greater financial stake if the club “cannot ensure the long-term future”. ------------------------- There is a point. £140k isn't going to last long, Hampson knows that, so this isn't designed to be the long term approach for future finances. It's really a way for the Trust to ensure they can gain the controlling influence they need to be able to get their community club proposals through. It's the shareholders who will vote for the proposal, so this is a way to ensure the proposal is passed. 140k doesn't need to be bought, the gap in the voting wasn't that large at all. This is big.
|
|
|
|
Post by zeke on Aug 19, 2016 12:23:11 GMT
Can't see too many people lining up to take up this offer?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dodger on Aug 19, 2016 12:58:03 GMT
Can't see too many people lining up to take up this offer? I agree. If the shares are a quid apiece, how many supporters would be prepared to buy enough to, in effect, gift to the Trust in order for the Trust to have the 'influence' - would the Trust potential gain a majority shareholding? The hard core of around 300 supporters would need to dip into £400-£500 apiece for the privilege.Would Hampson & co have first 'dibs' and so buy enough additional shares between them to out vote the Trust consortium anyway? The key words (underlined by me) in the opening statement says enough "BOSSES at Worcester City are considering allowing potential investors to claim a large stake in the cash-strapped club. Chairman Anthony Hampson has put forward a suggestion to lift the limit on the number of shares held by an individual. Nothing definite then! Dodger. |
|
|
|
Post by citytoon on Aug 19, 2016 14:09:15 GMT
Can't see too many people lining up to take up this offer? Not sane ones, no. |
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Aug 19, 2016 14:18:29 GMT
Why bother paying £140,000 to take ownership of the club? Why even bother paying £50,000 for 50,000 shares? Might as well pick it up from the receivers for a fraction of the price. There's a reason why the club have only managed to sell £5,000 worth of shares in the last 4 years, they are quite literally trying to flog a dead horse here. They just don't get it, there's no viable investment here
|
|
bj
Squad Member
Posts: 182
|
Post by bj on Aug 19, 2016 15:18:57 GMT
I suggest we give Carl the money that's in the bank to give him a huge wage budget. Have one big blast of a final season, then pull the plug. I am not looking forward to 2 (possibly 3) years of fighting relegation with a squad similar to what we've got now. Let WCFC die asap and see what happens. I'm still banking on the birth of a Worcester Warriers FC.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Aug 19, 2016 16:34:26 GMT
I suggest we give Carl the money that's in the bank to give him a huge wage budget. Have one big blast of a final season, then pull the plug. I am not looking forward to 2 (possibly 3) years of fighting relegation with a squad similar to what we've got now. Let WCFC die asap and see what happens. I'm still banking on the birth of a Worcester Warriers FC. I'm with you |
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Aug 19, 2016 17:26:00 GMT
Unfortunately, if they were to do that, the Directors could quite rightly be accused failing to best represent the interests of shareholders investment!! They could find themselves facing legal action. There is also the risk of taking the club into a state of trading whilst insolvent, again, this is unlawful. Football might be a funny old game, but business can be even funnier!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2016 17:30:24 GMT
Or they could siphon off as much of the assets as they can, add it to the cash obtained from corrupt land deals and buy new houses. That's legal if done through a decent accountant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Aug 19, 2016 19:33:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Dodger on Aug 19, 2016 19:50:41 GMT
Mr Hampson's comments in the article:- “It was clear some supporters held me personally responsible for the decisions taken by shareholders. This is an assertion I reject.
“Shareholders were invited to take a view on the proposals put to them and they have delivered their verdict.".
Hmmm, presumably he wasn't responsible for the voting where the chairman was named as proxy, then? Dodger. |
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Aug 19, 2016 23:25:30 GMT
Forgive me if I'm wrong......
But wasn't it voted ar the EGM, that the constitution will not be changed to allow any stakeholder holding more than 3,000 shares ??
This bloody board seems to think they can do what they want !!!!!!!
Oh, actually they can. They simply use all the proxy's.
|
|
|
|
Post by richwidd on Aug 20, 2016 8:09:59 GMT
Forgive me if I'm wrong...... But wasn't it voted ar the EGM, that the constitution will not be changed to allow any stakeholder holding more than 3,000 shares ?? This bloody board seems to think they can do what they want !!!!!!! Oh, actually they can. They simply use all the proxy's. Yes, it was and yes they can. The Chairman will do exactly what he wants supported by a small group of people who caused this mess and who will do exactly what they want. It does not matter what the majority of shareholders vote for, it never has, not as long as I have been involved. He forever talks about stakeholders and portfolios etc, he has no clue whatsoever. Six months ago, he said he would resign when we get to Bromsgrove. Then he offered something knowing full to well he had no power to offer it. He cannot simply put someone else in his place. How many Board members has he gone through since he has been Chairman? I have heard the new "Big Plan" to "save" the Club and as I heard it straight from the horses mouth, it will probably make a lot of you turn your back on the Club. Those of you who were at the last two home games would have seen him & when you hear what he has to say , it will make you sick. The main people who caused our situation are now lining themselves up as the new saviours. They all cleared off once NW & SGL were in the bag and they left it for a handful of people who saw all this coming to sort it all out. We as a Trust started Perdiswell 4 years ago and although it has gone on longer than we expected, it is still nowhere near as long as NW, and it has only cost the Club £12000. Now it is near completion, the possibility of a long term planned future is going to be rejected by the very people who have all but killed the club, for a short term fix. It will be the end as unfortunately there are still too many people who don't want to know what is going on. Expect to hear in the next few months, "we aim to be in the Football League in the next five years" - it is always a winner! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2016 8:17:20 GMT
Rich, you say "he cannot simply put someone else in his place....." But surely that's how he got the job? I don't remember him being elected.
|
|
|
|
Post by downthelane on Aug 20, 2016 8:31:35 GMT
Come on then Rich tell us what the " Big Plan" is?
|
|
oxford
First Teamer
Posts: 406
|
Post by oxford on Aug 20, 2016 8:40:54 GMT
Hi Rich
Would this be related to the "discussion"you were seen having with a guy at the end of the Gloucester game??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2016 8:57:28 GMT
Boddy is not "a guy", he's an invertebrate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Aug 20, 2016 9:15:41 GMT
Hampson was parachuted in as a puppet chairman, someone to take the knocks on the chin and be a front, and nothing has changed. He's offered to resign on numerous occasions, he did so at the AGM, he said he'd step down when we got to Bromsgrove, and he did when he wrote to the Supporters Trust. The Chairmans recent statements show once and for all that there is no plan at Board level to look at any kind of community club, and that the attendance of the club at the council working group is a folly. It was attended by Colin Layland, who doesnt understand anything about community ownership clubs, or how being a CBS can benefit the club if it really wants to come back to Worcester at its own ground.
The Board are not operating in the interest of the majority of shareholders, just the few behind the scenes who are pulling the strings, I'm not even sure that all of those who site on the Board are aware of whats going on, but they won't say anything, they never do. Myself, and other board members who have since resigned found out about meetings and discussions taking place that we were frozen out of, and now we know why. The Board don't see Perdiswell (or any other suitable site in Worcester) as Plan A, their Plan A is Sixways.
There is no unity, not because the Supporters Trust don't want to work with the club, but because the club don't want to work with the Supporters Trust, and do not have the interest of fans at heart at all.
Jim, you're right, that was what was proposed at the EGM, that the limit on shares was lifted, and that the club provides the unallocated shares to the Supporters Trust as nil-paid shares - not FREE shares, but nil-paid, which would have allowed the Supporters Trust to build their portfolio. The Board directed shareholders to vote against it, so why do they want to propose this again now?
Me and Rich, and many others , have been painted as troublemakers for many years, and to be honest, none of us enjoy being able to say "we told you so!" If this proposal goes to an EGM , I would strongly urge shareholders to vote against it, the only ones who will benefit from this suggested lift in share limits now would be those larger shareholders who can afford to purchase larger amounts of shares. The rank and file supporters will be further marginalised and will still have no say in the future of our football club.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2016 9:28:47 GMT
I agree with all the above. The old guard are still in control, is this Boddy - Hallmark even? Who are these people, and what else do they think they can rinse from the club's corpse?
|
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Aug 20, 2016 10:33:27 GMT
I can't understand why these people would want to 'up' their shareholding.
The club has no assets, so surely they would have no extra value from buying more shares.
Or are there hidden assets that we don't know about ?
|
|
|
|
Post by citytoon on Aug 20, 2016 10:50:58 GMT
Forgive me if I'm wrong...... But wasn't it voted ar the EGM, that the constitution will not be changed to allow any stakeholder holding more than 3,000 shares ?? This bloody board seems to think they can do what they want !!!!!!! Oh, actually they can. They simply use all the proxy's. Yes, it was and yes they can. The Chairman will do exactly what he wants supported by a small group of people who caused this mess and who will do exactly what they want. It does not matter what the majority of shareholders vote for, it never has, not as long as I have been involved. He forever talks about stakeholders and portfolios etc, he has no clue whatsoever. Six months ago, he said he would resign when we get to Bromsgrove. Then he offered something knowing full to well he had no power to offer it. He cannot simply put someone else in his place. How many Board members has he gone through since he has been Chairman? I have heard the new "Big Plan" to "save" the Club and as I heard it straight from the horses mouth, it will probably make a lot of you turn your back on the Club. Those of you who were at the last two home games would have seen him & when you hear what he has to say , it will make you sick. The main people who caused our situation are now lining themselves up as the new saviours. They all cleared off once NW & SGL were in the bag and they left it for a handful of people who saw all this coming to sort it all out. We as a Trust started Perdiswell 4 years ago and although it has gone on longer than we expected, it is still nowhere near as long as NW, and it has only cost the Club £12000. Now it is near completion, the possibility of a long term planned future is going to be rejected by the very people who have all but killed the club, for a short term fix. It will be the end as unfortunately there are still too many people who don't want to know what is going on. Expect to hear in the next few months, "we aim to be in the Football League in the next five years" - it is always a winner! Just incredible. The whole situation is a complete farce. |
|
