|
|
Post by cloud on May 23, 2017 6:48:16 GMT
www.worcesternews.co.uk/sport/15302121.REVEALED__City_s_new_ground_plan/The statement also included comments from city chairman Anthony Hampson, who said: “This is a realistic opportunity to bring City home at last, to a new ground that will over time, meet all the needs of our teams and fans.
Trust secretary Rob Crean said he was aware of the Parsonage Way discussion but insisted it was “pie in the sky”.
|
|
|
|
Post by downthelane on May 23, 2017 7:26:17 GMT
This sounds like the good news we have all been waiting years to hear, the Council helping the football club. Not quite sure about the dismissive "pie in the sky" comment, surely the Trust must support this if it means bringing the City home?
|
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on May 23, 2017 8:47:10 GMT
This sounds like the good news we have all been waiting years to hear, the Council helping the football club. Not quite sure about the dismissive "pie in the sky" comment, surely the Trust must support this if it means bringing the City home? This is just side tracking ,there will be a lot more objections to this proposal than Perdiswell ,the club do not have the time/money to survive the amount of years it would take to get all the processes and the build in place |
|
Fred
Reserve Teamer
Posts: 129
|
Post by Fred on May 23, 2017 9:11:34 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on May 23, 2017 9:16:45 GMT
This sounds like the good news we have all been waiting years to hear, the Council helping the football club. Not quite sure about the dismissive "pie in the sky" comment, surely the Trust must support this if it means bringing the City home? This is just side tracking ,there will be a lot more objections to this proposal than Perdiswell ,the club do not have the time/money to survive the amount of years it would take to get all the processes and the build in place I'm sure Rob has some very well founded reasons for his 'pie in the sky' opinion. However, it does seem odd that we have been led to believe that the board did not have a 'plan B'. I'm also assuming that the Trust are dismissing this other site because it cannot sustain the community aspect of the club. Some clarification would be good. |
|
|
|
Post by Croc on May 23, 2017 9:39:32 GMT
Everything now seems to become a bit clearer.
The reasons for the delays in the application being heard for Perdiswell was due to the Tories and the Board meeting to fudge a deal to build on this totally unsuitable piece of land.
From speaking to other people who have heard about this in the last few weeks shows it for what it is. The leak of this information seems to be the Chairman of the club - Anthony Hampson as he was telling people at Bromsgrove that City were moving to a new Ground at Parsonage Way next to Warndon Woods.
Why pass plans - that would be approved under Planning Regulations - to build on a suitable piece of land that happens to be in a marginal City Council Ward, that if the Tories lost to the Greens or Labour would mean them losing their wafer thin majority in the Guildhall.
The land at Parsonage Way lies in a Ward that is staunchly Blue and massively safe.
So - as with the Cinderella Ground renovations - they are free to dump this onto land - safe in the knowledge that it will never cost them a seat in Warndon as opposed to having the Community Hub in an area where they could well lose the seat. Purely political reasons - nothing more, nothing less.
If Hampson was telling people in the bar about this then he is the leak.
And I can confirm that the Trust have never been involved in talks about this site or these "secret" plans - they are focusing on the Perdiswell Project as they always have been - these unsuitable plans for Parsonage Way are purely a carve-up between the discredited board and their inept Chairman and the Tories on the City Council.
As with the G-Tech plans on similar land in the area - the opposition to the new place will be 10 -times more than it has been with Perdiswell - and I will fully support any protests or objections by the local residents in that part of Warndon, so don't for a second think that the Perdiswell saga is over, it isn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Noboddy aka Lord Ealing on May 23, 2017 9:56:34 GMT
I wonder who the solicitor will be that handles this purchase? I wonder if he represents other landowners in the vicinity? And I wonder if he will receive a "consultancy" fee? Such a lot to wonder about.
|
|
|
|
Post by Croc on May 23, 2017 10:48:34 GMT
Alan Feeney:
|
|
|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on May 23, 2017 12:57:29 GMT
At least I guessed the correct location ! As Croc says, political posturing and nothing more. Hampson will have finally spent the rest of the cash ( how much is left ? ) by the time anything could happen on this site. His experience is next to nil, although I understand he was once involved in moving offices 50 yards around the corner from Moor St to Castle St !
At least we've finally found out through the back door " draft statement " what Hampson really thinks about the Perdiswell plans. I can hear the tiny backtracking footsteps as I write from both the Council and Hampson.
As for that hypocrite Feeney, I can only assume that Raven Meadow golf club leasing the council golf course land at Perdiswell for a basic 16 k a year is " the market value " . A cynic might think that the Council were just glad to get shot of a loss making ( 50 k plus a year ) facility that they were under no statutory obligation to provide, whatever the cost.
|
|
|
|
Post by simples on May 23, 2017 14:41:18 GMT
PARSONage way!
Got to be the sale of the century.....
|
|
|
|
Post by Croc on May 23, 2017 14:55:22 GMT
PARSONage way! Got to be the sale of the century..... By this rate - we might well end up in a stadium in Norwich... |
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on May 23, 2017 15:11:54 GMT
At least I guessed the correct location ! As Croc says, political posturing and nothing more. Hampson will have finally spent the rest of the cash ( how much is left ? ) by the time anything could happen on this site. His experience is next to nil, although I understand he was once involved in moving offices 50 yards around the corner from Moor St to Castle St ! At least we've finally found out through the back door " draft statement " what Hampson really thinks about the Perdiswell plans. I can hear the tiny backtracking footsteps as I write from both the Council and Hampson. As for that hypocrite Feeney, I can only assume that Raven Meadow golf club leasing the council golf course land at Perdiswell for a basic 16 k a year is " the market value " . A cynic might think that the Council were just glad to get shot of a loss making ( 50 k plus a year ) facility that they were under no statutory obligation to provide, whatever the cost. Yes I believe that Ravenmedow's purchase from the City Council was passed 35-0 in favour.Which I think also included Cllr Jones |
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on May 23, 2017 15:24:47 GMT
Maybe, just maybe, this shows supporters what the Supporters Trust have had to deal with, working with the Board. Everyone has been saying that we should all work together, and the ST have gone out of their way to work closely with the Board, providing all relevant updates to the Board regarding the planning application, and focusing on what Hampson has stated publicly. that is , Perdiswell and Community Ownership.
Now its clear that, despite publicly saying that they are with the ST pushing for Perdiswell, the Board have been holding secret meetings with City councilors regarding this site at Parsonage Way. The ST were not invited to these meetings, they were behind closed doors, as if the Supporters Trust, and therefore the supporters, were of little importance.
This is not how business should be conducted, or at least if it is, don't get caught out doing it, and certainly don't go telling friends of friends over drinks!!
Perhaps these latest boardroom leaks have been done deliberately at a very sensitive time. It fits in with the comments that Hampson made on BBC H&W where he stopped short of saying the word Perdiswell, and used "sporting facility" instead. How about the Board coming out with some straight comments as to what direction they are going in now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Croc on May 23, 2017 15:29:24 GMT
Maybe, just maybe, this shows supporters what the Supporters Trust have had to deal with, working with the Board. Everyone has been saying that we should all work together, and the ST have gone out of their way to work closely with the Board, providing all relevant updates to the Board regarding the planning application, and focusing on what Hampson has stated publicly. that is , Perdiswell and Community Ownership. Now its clear that, despite publicly saying that they are with the ST pushing for Perdiswell, the Board have been holding secret meetings with City councilors regarding this site at Parsonage Way. The ST were not invited to these meetings, they were behind closed doors, as if the Supporters Trust, and therefore the supporters, were of little importance. This is not how business should be conducted, or at least if it is, don't get caught out doing it, and certainly don't go telling friends of friends over drinks!! Perhaps these latest boardroom leaks have been done deliberately at a very sensitive time. It fits in with the comments that Hampson made on BBC H&W where he stopped short of saying the word Perdiswell, and used "sporting facility" instead. How about the Board coming out with some straight comments as to what direction they are going in now. Consider this (and we might be into full on Conspiracy Mode) - ST meets and works with Board - updating them etc. in good faith. Hampson - in his secret meetings with Bayliss, et al, happens to also let on what the ST are doing, planning etc. Council find reason after reason to keep knocking back the Hearing date until the problem "disappears". Am I being far far too cyncial in my middle age? |
|
dragon
First Teamer
Posts: 355
|
Post by dragon on May 23, 2017 18:32:42 GMT
Clearly, planning permission will not be granted to both Perdiswell and Parsonage Way. It seems that Hampson has been working all along against the Trust, presumably on behalf of his pals who made up the previous Board and who control the majority of shares and thus can claim to be Worcester City FC.
Given that situation is never likely to change, I fail to see how the Trust can expect to see City playing in a stadium under their control - even they could ever come up with the funds to build it !
It seems to me that the time has come for a leader to emerge - someone who can either bring the sides together now or is big enough to launch a phoenix club before it`s too late !
|
|
|
|
Post by Row Zed on May 23, 2017 19:08:28 GMT
It now seems to me like hampson & co have never been genuinely intertested in perdy after all and have been doing their best behind the scenes to get it kicked into touch, my guess is they see perdy getting the go ahead as the key to a new fan owned club being formed, I just can't see them relinquishing power at any cost, they would rather wcfc go bust.
|
|
|
|
Post by Noboddy aka Lord Ealing on May 23, 2017 21:17:17 GMT
The sides can't be "brought together". Hampson and the board have shown they are not interested in working with anyone else.
|
|
|
|
Post by downthelane on May 24, 2017 7:21:39 GMT
What I don't quite understand is why would a supporters organisation that wants to Bring City Home turn down an opportunity of a site back in the City offered by the Council?
|
|
|
|
Post by Croc on May 24, 2017 7:33:40 GMT
What I don't quite understand is why would a supporters organisation that wants to Bring City Home turn down an opportunity of a site back in the City offered by the Council? And you never will |
|
harley
Squad Member
Posts: 241
|
Post by harley on May 24, 2017 7:34:42 GMT
What I don't quite understand is why would a supporters organisation that wants to Bring City Home turn down an opportunity of a site back in the City offered by the Council? Because it's not suitable? There are no existing bus services to the site, it has no sustainable transport routes nearby, it fall inside the "protected area" between the city and the M5 having nature reserves and listed buildings in close proximity. The supporters trust have always said that if a site is proposed that is better than Perdiswell they will support it but robust examinations of potential sites in and around the city have left Perdiswell as the best choice. This site at Parsonage way is no better than Nunnery Way - in fact it's worse than Nunnery Way. |
|
|
|
Post by jupu on May 24, 2017 8:05:33 GMT
What I don't quite understand downthelane is why you're so anxious to find out the view of a supporters organisation on this? Moreover how can any of us ordinary supporters comment on something we know so little about?
|
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on May 24, 2017 11:21:40 GMT
What I don't quite understand is why would a supporters organisation that wants to Bring City Home turn down an opportunity of a site back in the City offered by the Council? Because it's not suitable? There are no existing bus services to the site, it has no sustainable transport routes nearby, it fall inside the "protected area" between the city and the M5 having nature reserves and listed buildings in close proximity. The supporters trust have always said that if a site is proposed that is better than Perdiswell they will support it but robust examinations of potential sites in and around the city have left Perdiswell as the best choice. This site at Parsonage way is no better than Nunnery Way - in fact it's worse than Nunnery Way. S Bus services ?? Can you not remember that when Nunnery was first suggested, the club were offering to arrange a match day service !! I am still interested in hearing a response from Rob or anyone from the trust regarding their knowledge of this site & why we were not given reasons at that time as to why they would reject this as 'pie in the sky'....... This is really a time for us all to pull together for the future of the club, whether that be as a community club or indeed the club as it is. I am Truly sorry if anyone thinks I'm being negative...... But I am getting to the point of wondering if the community facility is more important to the trust than the football club itself. |
|
Fred
Reserve Teamer
Posts: 129
|
Post by Fred on May 24, 2017 11:51:07 GMT
What I don't quite understand is why would a supporters organisation that wants to Bring City Home turn down an opportunity of a site back in the City offered by the Council? Pardon my rudeness...but are you thick ? |
|
oxford
First Teamer
Posts: 406
|
Post by oxford on May 24, 2017 12:00:52 GMT
Forgive me if I am missing something here but, surely, just supposing this new site got permission,and everything else that goes with it, and a ground was built? Would that not mean that the same shower would be running the club,with the same outdated constitution etc,and the same people pulling the strings?If so what would be the point?If a success couldn't be made of a club playing at a pretty good level,in a fantastic ground,in front of 1000 people whatever would happen playing at some god awful level,in an identikit hovel,in front of a couple of hundred if you were lucky?Surely it wouldn't last five minutes?
|
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on May 24, 2017 12:42:11 GMT
You are not being negative Jim, and if a potential plot of land is being offered up, then its right and proper that it is considered along with every other plot of land.
As you will be aware, last year, a working group was set up by Sheena Ramsay, working with the football club, the Supporters Trust and the City Council to identify alternative sites to Perdiswell. The ST made it very clear, Perdiswell was still on the table as the preference, however, if an alternative site could be identified , then it would be assessed by all concerned.
An extensive search of land was carried out, and a number of plots were proposed, assessed, and evaluated. If a better, or even comparative site could be found, and the City Council were amenable to working with the club and the ST, we'd all move ahead. At the end of this process, the City Council announced that a full evaluation of sites had been carried out, but no sites had been found suitable, and the working group was stood down.
This site was not even considered by the City Council as suitable for initial assessment during that process!! If the City Council, football club, Supporters Trust, did not consider this site even worthy of initial assessment last year during an official assignment to find suitable sites, then why would it be suitable now?
The reason why the Supporters Trust were unable to give anyone any reasons why this site would be rejected is because, until a couple of months ago, we had no idea that the City Council and the football club were in communication over this site. We were not invited to any meetings, we had no knowledge. Our focus has been, and still is, Perdiswell. The Supporters Trust, when finally invited to a meeting (after a press release, including comments from the ST in favour of this scheme had been prepared for release) declined to be involved in this scheme, based on a) the fact that this land had already failed to meet any criteria, b) we focus only on Perdiswell after the working group findings and we are at a very important time regarding the planning application, c) the Supporters Trust had been excluded from any previous talks between the City Council and the football club, and this appeared to be a "fait du complis" even though Hampson was still telling everyone that he was 100% behind Perdiswell, this is clearly never been the case.
This is not a scheme that we have had any input into at all, and it was only a last minute intervention by a council officer which brought us into that final meeting, otherwise, we would have not been aware of this scheme, or these talks, until a public announcement was made.
The Supporters Trust have, on a number of occasions, made compromise in order for all sides to "pull together" We were of the understanding that all sides were pulling together towards Perdiswell. It is now clear that the football club have been working behind our back, and have no intention of pulling with the Supporters Trust. We can't stop them going behind our backs, after all, we are nothing more than a bunch of supporters, with no influence whatsoever.
If the football club want to push forward with this Parsonage Way plan, then the Supporters Trust will not stand in their way, we don't have the influence to stand in their way. We could point out the long list of reasons that this site never made it to first base during the working group evaluations, but we would be dismissed as troublemakers (a bit like Nunnery Way all over again)
If supporters believe that there is no value in us working towards a community owned football club, then so be it, we can walk away and leave it to the Directors to carry on. As a Supporter Trust, we have never stood in the way of what the Directors want to do, we don't have that influence.
Food for thought though, the Perdiswell planning application itself has cost the Supporters Trust around £200,000 to date, this is made up of various surveys, consultations, professional fees, council fees etc. And we've managed to do this for as little as possible, which is a reason why it has taken as long, and we get one shot at it obviously. The Nunnery Way planning application most likely cost the football club northwards of £1 million, on the basis that it cost them £600,000 just to cancel the contracts! A new planning application - say £500,000? And who is paying for this? Shareholder? Supporters? It may have escaped supporters notice that, the football club have NEVER put forward a planning application themselves, the two previous schemes at Nunnery Way both needed enabling development to make them viable, and that was when the club had realizable assets to fund a development. If the football club wish to go their own way, and do their own thing, which seems pretty clear from this scheme, then good luck to them.
Personally I'd feel more content if they were starting from the point of having a viable plot of land, even with no money, a viable plot of land would be a start. After all, City Councillors arent planning experts, in fact they have little knowledge of anything to do with planning. And this City Council once came up with an offer of land to a supermarket.........in Cripplegate Park!! I suppose, if the Councillors offered that land to the football club we should all support that idea too?
|
|
|
|
Post by creaner on May 24, 2017 12:44:11 GMT
Because it's not suitable? There are no existing bus services to the site, it has no sustainable transport routes nearby, it fall inside the "protected area" between the city and the M5 having nature reserves and listed buildings in close proximity. The supporters trust have always said that if a site is proposed that is better than Perdiswell they will support it but robust examinations of potential sites in and around the city have left Perdiswell as the best choice. This site at Parsonage way is no better than Nunnery Way - in fact it's worse than Nunnery Way. S Bus services ?? Can you not remember that when Nunnery was first suggested, the club were offering to arrange a match day service !! I am still interested in hearing a response from Rob or anyone from the trust regarding their knowledge of this site & why we were not given reasons at that time as to why they would reject this as 'pie in the sky'....... This is really a time for us all to pull together for the future of the club, whether that be as a community club or indeed the club as it is. I am Truly sorry if anyone thinks I'm being negative...... But I am getting to the point of wondering if the community facility is more important to the trust than the football club itself. Hi Jim. I've not said much about PW, or any other sites, as I'm not able to disclose what was said at meetings. Not that there was much. My pie in the sky quote re PW was the time factor. 5 years and nearly £50K spent, most of it raised by fans, plus the pro-bono work (est. £100K) needed to get a full planning application at Perdiswell. We don't have the time or money to start all over again and with Perdiswell still the best option and on the verge-honest- of planning committee why would we? Lets see Perdy through to completion and come home. |
|
|
|
Post by richwidd on May 24, 2017 12:51:14 GMT
Because it's not suitable? There are no existing bus services to the site, it has no sustainable transport routes nearby, it fall inside the "protected area" between the city and the M5 having nature reserves and listed buildings in close proximity. The supporters trust have always said that if a site is proposed that is better than Perdiswell they will support it but robust examinations of potential sites in and around the city have left Perdiswell as the best choice. This site at Parsonage way is no better than Nunnery Way - in fact it's worse than Nunnery Way. S Bus services ?? Can you not remember that when Nunnery was first suggested, the club were offering to arrange a match day service !! I am still interested in hearing a response from Rob or anyone from the trust regarding their knowledge of this site & why we were not given reasons at that time as to why they would reject this as 'pie in the sky'....... This is really a time for us all to pull together for the future of the club, whether that be as a community club or indeed the club as it is. I am Truly sorry if anyone thinks I'm being negative...... But I am getting to the point of wondering if the community facility is more important to the trust than the football club itself. You are a shareholder, why aren't you asking this question to the Board, what has it got to do with the Trust? We set out on this path 4 years ago in an attempt to make amends for the woeful incompetence from the past on something we saw coming but were unable to prevent. But as was reminded last week, this is what Hampson was brought in to do. With everything allegedly in his favour, he couldn't do it, now he has got nothing and he is now going to pull it off. This is a person who is propped up by a dozen or so people and whose rallying call is, "You are stuck with me". If you genuinely think our Chairman, who has two sponsors, hardly any volunteers, who has taken us down to Midland League etc etc is going to have something that has any credibility whatsoever then you are deluded. Nobody is stopping you from pulling together with Anthony Hampson, Nobody is stopping any City Fan from volunteering their help to the Club. You are also a member of the Trust, there is absolutely nothing to stop you from calling a meeting to change the Trusts position on Perdiswell or indeed anything else. |
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on May 24, 2017 13:18:11 GMT
That is really very unfair RichW, Anthony Hampson is a skilled man, after all, he moved the Chamber of Commerce 50 yards from Moor Street to Castle Street!! That must have been a monumental task in itself. But he has now surpassed that, he's moved Worcester City Football Club back 50 years!!
I wonder, why, after this amazing feat of commercial wizardry with the Chamber of Commerce, have no members of the Chamber of Commerce, who Hampson must know very well, and be held in high esteem, why have none of them come forward to offer help and financial assistance at Worcester City FC?
|
|
|
|
Post by Down The Pan on May 24, 2017 13:36:44 GMT
My view on this is simple, if Anthony Hampson believes that Marc Bayliss has the power and influence to deliver a wholly unsuitable piece of land into a football stadium at Parsonage Way, then let him go ahead. And what I mean by deliver is 1. City Council to pay for all work to create a viable planning application 2. City Council fast track the planning application (needs to be within the next 12 months if the club believe that they will be at Parsonage Way in two years) 3. City Council to gift the land , for free, to Worcester City Football Club Ltd. 4. City Council to pay for the building of the stadium, including all advanced works, highway modifications, car parking If Marc Bayliss will come out publicly and say that he will do this, then lets all pull together and get behind bringing City Home to Parsonage Way Otherwise, this is simply Pie in the Sky!   |
|
|
|
Post by richwidd on May 24, 2017 13:37:52 GMT
That is really very unfair RichW, Anthony Hampson is a skilled man, after all, he moved the Chamber of Commerce 50 yards from Moor Street to Castle Street!! That must have been a monumental task in itself. But he has now surpassed that, he's moved Worcester City Football Club back 50 years!! I wonder, why, after this amazing feat of commercial wizardry with the Chamber of Commerce, have no members of the Chamber of Commerce, who Hampson must know very well, and be held in high esteem, why have none of them come forward to offer help and financial assistance at Worcester City FC? I do remember the CEO of The Chamber of Commerce coming along to a meeting held by Hampson. As with all of his promises, All sorts of wonderful things were going to happen....................................... |
|
