|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Sept 12, 2017 19:06:50 GMT
I despair Rich! What sort of response is that from a Supporters Trust representative?! The Trust is beginning to look as shabby and undemocratic as the Board of WCFC Ltd. They're probably many good, honest people in the Trust. Unfortunately, the lackeys of John Snape who have infiltrated the Trust have the loudest voice. Can you tell me who the lackeys are? The Trust Board consists of Me (Jem Pitt) Dave Wood, Neil Cox, Gavin Warr, Jack Hundley, Ken Johnson, Mike Davis, Julian Pugh, with Rob Crean as Secretary. So which of us is an infiltrating Snape lackey? Let me know either on here, or by PM, and I will arrange to have them disposed of via my friends in the Russian Mafia. You appear to know things that would be very useful to get out in the open, it would benefit all of us to know, so please, take this opportunity to help the club, and the Trust, and let me know.
|
|
|
Post by The Verner on Sept 12, 2017 19:42:20 GMT
They're probably many good, honest people in the Trust. Unfortunately, the lackeys of John Snape who have infiltrated the Trust have the loudest voice. Can you tell me who the lackeys are? The Trust Board consists of Me (Jem Pitt) Dave Wood, Neil Cox, Gavin Warr, Jack Hundley, Ken Johnson, Mike Davis, Julian Pugh, with Rob Crean as Secretary. So which of us is an infiltrating Snape lackey? Let me know either on here, or by PM, and I will arrange to have them disposed of via my friends in the Russian Mafia. You appear to know things that would be very useful to get out in the open, it would benefit all of us to know, so please, take this opportunity to help the club, and the Trust, and let me know. Maybe its me
|
|
|
Post by creaner on Sept 12, 2017 20:02:14 GMT
Can you tell me who the lackeys are? The Trust Board consists of Me (Jem Pitt) Dave Wood, Neil Cox, Gavin Warr, Jack Hundley, Ken Johnson, Mike Davis, Julian Pugh, with Rob Crean as Secretary. So which of us is an infiltrating Snape lackey? Let me know either on here, or by PM, and I will arrange to have them disposed of via my friends in the Russian Mafia. You appear to know things that would be very useful to get out in the open, it would benefit all of us to know, so please, take this opportunity to help the club, and the Trust, and let me know. Maybe its me 🤣
|
|
|
Post by voiceoftreason on Sept 12, 2017 20:53:48 GMT
Pipe down genghis, the adults are talking. And what's your contribution? Making veiled, snide remarks and trying to damage the reputation of the Trust at the time the fans need them most? Stay in your box, I can see your motivation. the only person I see trying to damage the reputation of the Trust is you (by implying some sort of infiltration by the imaginary "lackeys" you have invented) Grow up or shut up
|
|
|
Post by genghis on Sept 12, 2017 21:39:10 GMT
And what's your contribution? Making veiled, snide remarks and trying to damage the reputation of the Trust at the time the fans need them most? Stay in your box, I can see your motivation. the only person I see trying to damage the reputation of the Trust is you (by implying some sort of infiltration by the imaginary "lackeys" you have invented) Grow up or shut up You joined the site and within a day asked for my ban because you didn't like what I was saying. Only child here is you, you clearly can't handle adult debate. If you have a mirror in your house, go have a word with yourself.
|
|
|
Post by genghis on Sept 12, 2017 21:41:17 GMT
They're probably many good, honest people in the Trust. Unfortunately, the lackeys of John Snape who have infiltrated the Trust have the loudest voice. Can you tell me who the lackeys are? The Trust Board consists of Me (Jem Pitt) Dave Wood, Neil Cox, Gavin Warr, Jack Hundley, Ken Johnson, Mike Davis, Julian Pugh, with Rob Crean as Secretary. So which of us is an infiltrating Snape lackey? Let me know either on here, or by PM, and I will arrange to have them disposed of via my friends in the Russian Mafia. You appear to know things that would be very useful to get out in the open, it would benefit all of us to know, so please, take this opportunity to help the club, and the Trust, and let me know. Interesting question. Perhaps your mafia friends should have a 'chat' with all just to be on the safe side?
|
|
|
Post by voiceoftreason on Sept 12, 2017 21:51:05 GMT
I called for your "ban" as you were clearly breaching the terms of use of this forum by posting defamatory statements.
The moderators obviously decided that you are so ridiculous that nobody would take your comments seriously and that for entertainment value alone you should be allowed to remain.
I have to agree with them. Your bizarre fantasies about the all powerful Snape are as hilarious as they are mental.
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Sept 12, 2017 21:57:28 GMT
Can you tell me who the lackeys are? The Trust Board consists of Me (Jem Pitt) Dave Wood, Neil Cox, Gavin Warr, Jack Hundley, Ken Johnson, Mike Davis, Julian Pugh, with Rob Crean as Secretary. So which of us is an infiltrating Snape lackey? Let me know either on here, or by PM, and I will arrange to have them disposed of via my friends in the Russian Mafia. You appear to know things that would be very useful to get out in the open, it would benefit all of us to know, so please, take this opportunity to help the club, and the Trust, and let me know. Interesting question. Perhaps your mafia friends should have a 'chat' with all just to be on the safe side? No need, just the one, or two that you are claiming have infiltrated, so just give the names and it will be sorted. Any reason why you wouldnt want to do this?
|
|
|
Post by voiceoftreason on Sept 12, 2017 22:06:19 GMT
It is no good calling the idiot out Jem - we both know that he can't name who the "infiltrators" are because he is making it all up. It is a figment of his overactive imagination.
My theory? An ex-player with a grudge - presumably because Snape thought he was shite so got rid of him.
|
|
|
Post by The Verner on Sept 13, 2017 9:14:49 GMT
Will just add it to my other job titles
|
|
|
Post by wr4wolf on Sept 13, 2017 19:41:37 GMT
Apologies in advance as I am only a casual observer to all this so may not have all the facts but as I see it there are 3 plots of land currently linked in some way to our quest for a new ground:
1. The far end of the St Modwen development which still remains undeveloped & where I assume the original stadium would have gone?
2. Perdiswell
3. Parsonage Way
The top 2 would have come with all the infrastructure in place, given us our new ground much sooner & should theorerically been the cheapest options to construct.
It now looks the council are willing to invest £100,000 of our tax payers money looking at parsonage way. If this proves successful the club then has to find the money to not only clear the site but sort out all the infrastructure works, highways modifications, car parking, lighting etc. It is by far the most expensive option to consider & potentially has the longest timeline.
This may be a stupid question but what is happening to the land at the end of the Nunnery Way development where the ground would originally have gone?
For the clubs board to put Parsonage away ahead of Perdiswell is laughable.
|
|
|
Post by Croc on Sept 13, 2017 20:12:14 GMT
The DUP got £1bn from the Tories for their collaboration and complicitness.
The Football Club are getting £100k from Baylis, Mitchell, Jones, Feeney et al for their collaboration.
Just saying...
|
|
|
Post by wr4wolf on Sept 13, 2017 20:30:39 GMT
Quite possibly but the DUP did benefit. Hampson may have £100k in his pocket but his construction costs have now gone through the roof so overall a massive loss!!!
|
|
|
Post by sparkyukworcester on Sept 13, 2017 21:07:41 GMT
Let's be clear though what is proposed at Perdiswell and at Parsonage Way are very different prospects. A simple clubhouse, small stand on one side and a pitch with floodlights is a very 'kit box' ground compared to the small but perfectly formed 'mini stadium' at Perdiswell. Costs will be different and Parsonage Way will be a cheaper solution I would have thought but with a very different product at the end. It depends what is deemed important and which horse people want to back to get the club back in the city - the long shot (as we know getting planning approval is probably still going to be easier than land transfer) with the perfect outcome at Perdiswell or the relatively meagre solution with political backing that looks far more likely to be waived through the necessary red tape, potentially relatively quickly - getting the club back in the City and possibly keeping it alive in its current form.
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Sept 14, 2017 8:29:27 GMT
Apologies in advance as I am only a casual observer to all this so may not have all the facts but as I see it there are 3 plots of land currently linked in some way to our quest for a new ground: 1. The far end of the St Modwen development which still remains undeveloped & where I assume the original stadium would have gone? 2. Perdiswell 3. Parsonage Way The top 2 would have come with all the infrastructure in place, given us our new ground much sooner & should theorerically been the cheapest options to construct. It now looks the council are willing to invest £100,000 of our tax payers money looking at parsonage way. If this proves successful the club then has to find the money to not only clear the site but sort out all the infrastructure works, highways modifications, car parking, lighting etc. It is by far the most expensive option to consider & potentially has the longest timeline. This may be a stupid question but what is happening to the land at the end of the Nunnery Way development where the ground would originally have gone? For the clubs board to put Parsonage away ahead of Perdiswell is laughable. Don't forget that a development on Nunnery Way will require a pedestrian footbridge over the roadway. A pelican crossing and reducing the speed limit to 40 mph will not be allowed.................oh, wait a minute
|
|
|
Post by richwidd on Sept 14, 2017 8:34:53 GMT
Let's be clear though what is proposed at Perdiswell and at Parsonage Way are very different prospects. A simple clubhouse, small stand on one side and a pitch with floodlights is a very 'kit box' ground compared to the small but perfectly formed 'mini stadium' at Perdiswell. Costs will be different and Parsonage Way will be a cheaper solution I would have thought but with a very different product at the end. It depends what is deemed important and which horse people want to back to get the club back in the city - the long shot (as we know getting planning approval is probably still going to be easier than land transfer) with the perfect outcome at Perdiswell or the relatively meagre solution with political backing that looks far more likely to be waived through the necessary red tape, potentially relatively quickly - getting the club back in the City and possibly keeping it alive in its current form. It is clear what is being proposed at Perdiswell but in order for us to be clear about the different prospects of the two sites, could you be clear about what the Parsonage Way proposal is. I have read that it is going to be a Community Stadium, so how about sharing it with the Club's own Community - its Shareholders and Supporters. It might convince some people, but "a simple clubhouse, small stand on one side and a pitch with floodlights" isn't enough to convince me.
|
|
|
Post by genghis on Sept 14, 2017 12:52:29 GMT
It is no good calling the idiot out Jem - we both know that he can't name who the "infiltrators" are because he is making it all up. It is a figment of his overactive imagination. My theory? An ex-player with a grudge - presumably because Snape thought he was shite so got rid of him. Couldn't give a toss what one of Snape's boys thinks about anything. If you're anything like Snape (which you appear to be), then you know as much about how 'shite' a player is as I do about ballet.
|
|
|
Post by sparkyukworcester on Sept 14, 2017 13:29:14 GMT
Rich, I am merely pointing out the differences in the likely quality of the end product. I am assuming from what I read (which is no more than you) that Parsonage Way is proposed to be a relatively basic setup and merely pointing that out and disagreeing with the chap who said it would be the more expensive option. I may be wrong.
In my mind this is a choice now between a quick fix which could see the club back in the city sooner or the better long term proposal which probably has more barriers to its success.
I think, like most genuine fans who are not directly involved in the process, I am torn by desperately wanting City in Worcester but wanting to have the best possible location and facilities for the club and community.
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Sept 14, 2017 13:34:25 GMT
Can't do it can you genghis? All mouth and no trousers, you just haven't got the bottle. Maybe people might take you seriously when you grow a backbone, although I somehow doubt it by now. See, you've made accusations of improper conduct by certain members of the Board of the Supporters Trust. That cannot go uninvestigated.
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo Bitburg on Sept 14, 2017 15:04:57 GMT
Rich, I am merely pointing out the differences in the likely quality of the end product. I am assuming from what I read (which is no more than you) that Parsonage Way is proposed to be a relatively basic setup and merely pointing that out and disagreeing with the chap who said it would be the more expensive option. I may be wrong. In my mind this is a choice now between a quick fix which could see the club back in the city sooner or the better long term proposal which probably has more barriers to its success. I think, like most genuine fans who are not directly involved in the process, I am torn by desperately wanting City in Worcester but wanting to have the best possible location and facilities for the club and community. Parsonage Way a quick fix? Dream on.
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Sept 14, 2017 15:32:25 GMT
Interestingly, there is a live planning application to the South of Warndon Woods, which is being quite heavily objected to by residents, having a bit of a bashing by consultees, including Warndon Parish Council, and is objected to by local Councillor Hodgson. It will be very interesting to see the views of both Hodgsons, Feeney and Roberts to the plans for Parsonage Way. planning.worcester.gov.uk/OcellaWeb/planningDetails?reference=P17P0247&from=planningSearchIf I was a resident of Warndon, I'd be asking those councillors how they can justify gifting £100,000 of ratepayers money to a wealthy and profitable organisation such as the Worcestershire FA Ltd. to carry out feasibility into this piece of land. They can well afford to pay for this themselves surely? And do they have the authority to give the land to the Worcestershire FA at a peppercorn rent of £1 per annum? What is the basis for this gifting? Are they not obliged to optimize the value of their (and our) assets? Pity the poor tenant farmer, who would have probably appreciated a £1 per annum rent on the land, he's getting thrown off the land, so the Worcestershire FA can have it for free! Parsonage Way is looking like a deja vu experience of Nunnery Way, with WCFC playing the Trojan Horse, this time to the Worcestershire FA. And the City Council will say "We did our bit!" when it all goes pear shaped. Quick fix? The football club and the council have been talking about this site for over a year (without telling anyone, even those involved in working with the football club on the Perdiswell project) and in a year, they've only got to the stage of applying for funding to do a feasibility study, thats it! And Colin Layland is telling everyone that we will be at this new ground in two years time! Seriously? Not withstanding the planning process, which this feasibility study will try to fast track, the level of objection that will come through residents groups in the area (who make PPP look like a bunch of slightly irritated boy scouts), the process for trying to change SWDP, which in itself could take two years, there's the question of how to finance this. In order to raise funding, the club would have to do the one thing that it has rejected constantly - change the constitution! But to do that, they'll need shareholder support, and 75% of it too, and they'll have to hold a General Meeting. They are scared stiff of holding a General Meeting, and we know why now, and they know that we know!
|
|
|
Post by voiceoftreason on Sept 14, 2017 16:42:17 GMT
It is no good calling the idiot out Jem - we both know that he can't name who the "infiltrators" are because he is making it all up. It is a figment of his overactive imagination. My theory? An ex-player with a grudge - presumably because Snape thought he was shite so got rid of him. Couldn't give a toss what one of Snape's boys thinks about anything. If you're anything like Snape (which you appear to be), then you know as much about how 'shite' a player is as I do about ballet. One of Snape's boys?! Hilarious. I have never once had a conversation with the man. I am as indifferent to him as you are obsessive about him. You seriously need to address your mental health issues. Paranoid delusions and obsessive behaviour are seriously worrying signs and you need help before your insane ramblings get you into some serious trouble.
|
|
|
Post by voiceoftreason on Sept 14, 2017 16:53:04 GMT
And you would do well not to piss off Who? (Jem) he is a litigious little bastard!
|
|
|
Post by sparkyukworcester on Sept 14, 2017 16:53:36 GMT
All valid points. All probably not insurmountable if the political will we are told exists behind PW truly comes to fruition but as we know politicians can change their opinions with the wind. It may be a smokescreen and they are banking on the club running out of money before they get to the point of having to make real decisions. It may be a genuine attempt to do the right thing. The justification for funding the first step seems to come from some sort of 'improvement plan' for the city which allows for the return of the football club to be deemed a just cause. It's not a document I have ever had any desire to read so can't comment on its validity. All sorts of organisations that are commercial (and make profit) get grants because what they do is deemed to be 'good' for us. I guess this is no different.
The worst possible outcome is that the political backing for the two proposals gets split along party lines and Worcester continues to be tight in terms of the balance of power or worse still continues to change hands regularly. In that case neither will ever happen...
|
|
|
Post by sparkyukworcester on Sept 14, 2017 17:11:01 GMT
More worryingly, on rereading the document, £850,000 of our council tax is sat 'uncommitted' in said fund.
|
|
|
Post by Noboddy aka Lord Ealing on Sept 15, 2017 9:31:49 GMT
The board has no intention of pursuing PW, nor Perdiswell come to that. They just want to drag the planning agony out so they can use up any assets left from the SGL sale. PW is a waste of time and that's the point. A red herring like that distracts any attention from the real goings on. The longer "supporters" hand money over to these charlatans the longer they'll have to rob WCFC, and the longer it will be before a new club emerges.
|
|
cogg
Squad Member
Posts: 208
|
Post by cogg on Sept 15, 2017 12:30:21 GMT
I think Lord Ealing gets it right yet again.....a wholly sad set of affairs and why I walked away.
|
|
|
Post by genghis on Sept 16, 2017 8:44:24 GMT
Couldn't give a toss what one of Snape's boys thinks about anything. If you're anything like Snape (which you appear to be), then you know as much about how 'shite' a player is as I do about ballet. One of Snape's boys?! Hilarious. I have never once had a conversation with the man. I am as indifferent to him as you are obsessive about him. You seriously need to address your mental health issues. Paranoid delusions and obsessive behaviour are seriously worrying signs and you need help before your insane ramblings get you into some serious trouble. Keep all your threats to yourself. I know that's how your sort operate but it doesn't work on me.
|
|
|
Post by Croc on Sept 16, 2017 12:10:23 GMT
One of Snape's boys?! Hilarious. I have never once had a conversation with the man. I am as indifferent to him as you are obsessive about him. You seriously need to address your mental health issues. Paranoid delusions and obsessive behaviour are seriously worrying signs and you need help before your insane ramblings get you into some serious trouble. Keep all your threats to yourself. I know that's how your sort operate but it doesn't work on me. Looks like you can give it out (making unsubstantiated allegations about everyone from the management to the Supporters Trust, to ordinary users on here) - but you haven’t the stones to suck it up when you get it back mildly in return. You’re a lampoon. Looks like the hypocritical lady doth protest too much...
|
|
|
Post by zeke on Sept 16, 2017 14:49:09 GMT
"ordinary user" ? How dare you 😂
|
|