|
Post by andymitchell on Oct 13, 2017 9:20:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Croc on Oct 13, 2017 9:34:03 GMT
"The initial release over the Parsonage Way project indicates the club hopes to kick off the 2019-20 campaign in its own home."
Is it April 1st already?
|
|
|
Post by B*ue dragonstander on Oct 13, 2017 9:39:50 GMT
Every day seems to be All Fools Day for this joker.
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Oct 13, 2017 9:43:35 GMT
Every time Hampson opens his mouth, his foot jumps straight in! I guess he's overlooked the fact that the Supporters Trust funded the Perdiswell joint planning application to the tune of raised funds of over £100,000.
Hampson has said in the Worcester News that they way forward for the football club is community ownership, and that he and the board fully backed community ownership. The Supporters Trust raised many thousands, to deliver a viable and sustainable solution for community ownership, including a substantial business plan, raising money to fund legal costs towards constitutional change plans, working with Supporters Direct and Locality, and identifying future sources of funding for a CBS.
Meanwhile, Hampson and the Board spent £12,000 on solicitors to manage an AGM (which was completely unnecessary, and could and should have been Chaired by a competent Chairman. He also spent many thousands on his own report into community ownership, and when he didn't like the findings (which were in line with the Supporters Trust findings) he dismissed the report as unhelpful!
Andy - How about asking the Chairman how much has been raised by the Board of Directors - they committed in their business plan to raising £10,000 during last season, how much did they raise? . How about asking him when the management accounts will be published on the website, as he promised would be the case at the AGM of 2012/13 (it may have been earlier, the last one held at the Harry Knowles Lounge) He promised that transparency to shareholders, where is it?
And Andy, how about asking Hampson about accountability? On the one hand he says that IF we keep winning, and IF crowds hold up and IF we get a run in the FA Vase, then the losses might be vastly reduced. So what will be the situation if these IFs don't occur? Will the losses be on a par with previous losses? Ask him what happened to the "balanced budget" that he spoke about to the Worcester News when he took two league demotion. Has that already been shown not to be achievable?
And finally Andy, ask him when the company will hold their AGM? If the Chairman is now asking for funds to be put into the club, isn't only fair and equitable that those he is asking have visibility as to where the club is, and where it plans to go? Otherwise, its simply money going into some black hole, with zero accountability.
Its his call. I'm not sure too many people really want to raise funds and give money when the Board operated under this complete veil of secrecy.
|
|
|
Post by jupu on Oct 13, 2017 12:11:25 GMT
Andy Mitchell has stated in a comment on the WN site "As I understand the National League System rules...if a club resigns from any league from steps 1-4 without going through an insolvency event, they resign from that chunk of the system." If that is so then the club's request to go down two leagues and the subsequent appeal at a three hour hearing at Wembley was never going to succeed? That surely would have been apparent when the club first inquired about dropping down? Or have the rules changed?
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Oct 13, 2017 12:24:09 GMT
Exactly, and what has Wembley got to do with the National League? From what the club put out via the press when they made their decisions, the league placement was a decision made by the FA. Yet again, a complete lack of clarity and bungled communication. And how much did they spend on an appeal which ,according to Andy Mitchell, was an appeal that could never possibly succeed ??
|
|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on Oct 13, 2017 12:59:03 GMT
Hampson remains as deluded as ever. The man is a laughing stock.
Trumpeting " vastly reduced " losses from the rooftops is hardly an achievement, as it was his and the Board's incompetence which incurred all the losses in the first place ! The bottom line is despite dropping 3 levels the club is still losing money !
Perhaps if he told shareholders via an AGM the true audited financial position, he may have more chance with his begging bowl.
The headline ought to be " I'm still hopeless this season, but not as bad as I've been ".
|
|
dragon
First Teamer
Posts: 355
|
Post by dragon on Oct 13, 2017 19:06:27 GMT
We now have a situation where the trust formed to support the football club seems to support only the principle of winning a planning decision over the site of a proposed new stadium which the football club doesn`t want to play in.
Meanwhile, the football club, for it`s part, just wants to be left alone for it`s directors to run the club even further into the ground than they have done already.Their policy of beggar the fans, begger the shareholders ( except the caucus that holds a controlling interest) has seen them survive the migration not only from the club`s traditional home but also the city which bears its name.
All this mess and muddle has reduced those interested in the politics of the club to a rump of 42 `supporters` and about a dozen contributors to this site.. I`m surprised there are that many !
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Oct 14, 2017 12:20:00 GMT
The Supporters Trust was not formed to "support the football club" Way back in 2004, before we really knew the depth of the financial issue, the Supporters Trust was founded to provide a solution to involve fans in their local football club. By creating a community owned football club, supporters could take ownership and have a say in how the club was run by whatever Board was in place. Since then the Supporters Trust have actively pursued this objective, however, we have on numerous occasions, offered support to the football club, but on virtually every occasion, that offer has been shunned by the club Board. In reality there is little to nothing that the Supporters Trust, as a body, can do, even if a football club Board wants to work with them. In the case of WCFC, the club Board want nothing to do with the Supporters Trust, won't involve us in any of their plans ( we have as little knowledge of Parsonage Way as every other supporter, we have as little knowledge of the finances as every other shareholder, we have as little knowledge of future strategy as every other Director).
|
|
dragon
First Teamer
Posts: 355
|
Post by dragon on Oct 14, 2017 19:03:03 GMT
How silly of me to think that a body bearing the title `Worcester City Supporters Trust` might have as its` raison d`etre` the support of Worcester City FC ! I`ve only just realised it was Banbury Spencer or some such who inspired the society`s formation !
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Oct 14, 2017 19:18:19 GMT
Indeed, the clue is in the word Trust, it is a collective for Supporters, formed and run for the benefit of supporters and the community, and NOT for the benefit of the football club. It is not, and never will be, a financial prop for an ailing Ltd. company. The Supporters Trust is formed as a CBS, owned by its members and accountable to its members. We very much follow the doctrine for Supporter owned clubs as laid down by Supporters Direct
Supporters Direct are an umbrella organisation set up originally by the British government (with cross-party support) to provide support and assistance for its member trusts to secure a greater level of accountability and deliver democratic representation within football clubs and within football's governing structures.
|
|
|
Post by downthelane on Oct 14, 2017 19:35:19 GMT
What is a Supporters’ Trust? A Supporters’ Trust is a democratic, not-for-profit organisation of supporters, committed to strengthening the voice for supporters in the decision making process at a club, and strengthening the links between the club and the community it serves.
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Oct 14, 2017 19:38:23 GMT
Exactly.
|
|
dragon
First Teamer
Posts: 355
|
Post by dragon on Oct 15, 2017 8:19:04 GMT
Okay, so the Trust is nothing to do with WCFC. So how come,like many others, I first signed up as a member when approached to do so at a City match at SGL? I was led to believe- and subscribed to - a cause which was to provide a solution to WCFC`s ground problems. Later, I attended a WCFC shareholders` meeting at SGL at which Mike Davis sat next to the Club chairman and furthered that apparent misconception. It`now seems to me that much of the money raised towards the hapless planning application was garnered by stealth and has been applied to other objectives nothing to do with the Club which the Trust Board are hiding behind !
Let me make it clear that I am no fan of Hampson and his Board but am beginning to suspect that the Trust may be as guilty of obfuscation as those they seek to accuse of it !
|
|
|
Post by creaner on Oct 15, 2017 8:33:51 GMT
Okay, so the Trust is nothing to do with WCFC. So how come,like many others, I first signed up as a member when approached to do so at a City match at SGL? I was led to believe- and subscribed to - a cause which was to provide a solution to WCFC`s ground problems. Later, I attended a WCFC shareholders` meeting at SGL at which Mike Davis sat next to the Club chairman and furthered that apparent misconception. It`now seems to me that much of the money raised towards the hapless planning application was garnered by stealth and has been applied to other objectives nothing to do with the Club which the Trust Board are hiding behind ! Let me make it clear that I am no fan of Hampson and his Board but am beginning to suspect that the Trust may be as guilty of obfuscation as those they seek to accuse of it ! Had to read that twice to make sure. “Money garnered by stealth and has been applied to other objectives nothing to do with the Club which the Trust Board are hiding behind.” You mean theft? Can you please substantiate that accusation.
|
|
dragon
First Teamer
Posts: 355
|
Post by dragon on Oct 15, 2017 8:56:19 GMT
Creaner, if the trust continues to keep its distance from WCFC it is clearly not fulfilling the objectives for which it was set up. I, like many others, subscribed to a fund to establish a ground for Worcester City FC -NOT the City of Worcester - nor any other entity. Now we are being told it was never the intention to do things which might benefit the Football Club- see Who above.
They may not be the ideal` bed mates`but the further you distance the Trust from the Board, the further you get away from what I believe the majority of Trust members thought they were donating to. Surely you see that the present situation is decidedly cloudy in terms of what you are now seeking to achieve. The attendance of 42 at the recent meeting must have given you a clue that this was so !
|
|
dragon
First Teamer
Posts: 355
|
Post by dragon on Oct 15, 2017 9:27:50 GMT
Oh, and by the way, I DID NOT mean `theft`- you must have a very old dictionary indeed. Today, `stealth` means sneakiness.Doing things quietly and carefully so no one notices.No dishonesty was meant or implied - you chose to raise the stakes there, not me !
|
|
|
Post by jupu on Oct 15, 2017 9:28:02 GMT
The Trust has not shifted its position in terms of what it has been trying to achieve. If the Club has established fresh objectives and priorities then surely it needs to establish dialogue to bridge the gap that it has created. I cannot understand why anyone would suggest that the Trust is acting inappropriately.
|
|
|
Post by creaner on Oct 15, 2017 9:42:00 GMT
Creaner, if the trust continues to keep its distance from WCFC it is clearly not fulfilling the objectives for which it was set up. I, like many others, subscribed to a fund to establish a ground for Worcester City FC -NOT the City of Worcester - nor any other entity. Now we are being told it was never the intention to do things which might benefit the Football Club- see Who above. They may not be the ideal` bed mates`but the further you distance the Trust from the Board, the further you get away from what I believe the majority of Trust members thought they were donating to. Surely you see that the present situation is decidedly cloudy in terms of what you are now seeking to achieve. The attendance of 42 at the recent meeting must have given you a clue that this was so ! Myself, Mike, Dave, Julian, Jem and others over the years have bent over backwards to work with the club, any distance has been created by the unwillingness of the board of the football club to engage and in some cases work against our efforts. Not for the want of trying on our part. Getting us back playing in the city has always been the aim as playing in exile with little money in the bank and continuing losses- a guess here as we don’t know how much from the sale of SGL is left- means time is the thing we don’t have. Perdiswell has long been acknowledged to be a viable, achievable and sustainable solution, probably the only one. All money raised/donated has gone towards that. We have had AGM’s and presented accounts to members at each one and any trust member can ask for the full set for any year if they wish, contrast that to the secretive way the finances of the football club are kept from shareholders. Why??? TBH i’ve Head a bellyful of all this. Seems we’ve wasted years of our time on a hapless application.
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Oct 15, 2017 9:57:52 GMT
Perhaps these 'negative' comments have some substance. The Club & The Trust are without doubt working in totally different directions. The Club appear to be looking at a Sunday league team who will play on what appears to be a completely inadequate stadium. The Trust (correct me if I'm wrong) are trying to create a facility to benefit the community alongside a football stadium to house a Worcester football club. In recent statements Anthony Hampson has made it transparently clear that The Club want nothing to do with the Perdiswell project & that WCFC will never play at there. Almost everyone agrees that The Club is doomed & is likely to fold within a few seasons, leaving Worcester without a football club with any stature; (not that we have one now anyway). So my question to this debate is: Why do The Trust not form a Phoenix Club now in order to be prepared for Perdiswell to be able to be home to a Worcester Football Club ? I, & I'm sure many others would be willing to pay a similar entrance fee to the present charges even if the new team had to play on the likes of Pitchcroft until Perdiswell is built.
|
|
dragon
First Teamer
Posts: 355
|
Post by dragon on Oct 15, 2017 10:13:44 GMT
Sincere apologies to all offended by my remarks. My great disappointment is that a leader has not emerged who is capable of bringing the parties together to work for the common good. Age and distance almost certainly means I will never watch the team of my youth ever again so I will leave the battlefield to those of a more belligerent nature. Just one last time `UP THE CITY `!
|
|
|
Post by richwidd on Oct 15, 2017 10:20:50 GMT
Okay, so the Trust is nothing to do with WCFC. So how come,like many others, I first signed up as a member when approached to do so at a City match at SGL? I was led to believe- and subscribed to - a cause which was to provide a solution to WCFC`s ground problems. Later, I attended a WCFC shareholders` meeting at SGL at which Mike Davis sat next to the Club chairman and furthered that apparent misconception. It`now seems to me that much of the money raised towards the hapless planning application was garnered by stealth and has been applied to other objectives nothing to do with the Club which the Trust Board are hiding behind ! Let me make it clear that I am no fan of Hampson and his Board but am beginning to suspect that the Trust may be as guilty of obfuscation as those they seek to accuse of it ! So your complaint is, at least four years ago at St Georges Lane you attended two meetings and joined the Trust. Move on a few years and as times change members have democratically voted several times and you don't like it. If you make a complaint to Supporters Direct, I am sure they will look into it.
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Oct 15, 2017 12:02:34 GMT
I've lost times of the times that the Supporters Trust have tried to work with the football club , the number of attempts to negotiate on so many aspects, the number of times we've supported third party efforts to find a common goal. This has included support staff from Supporters Direct making a journey up from London to Worcester to meet with the Board, and the Chairman not attending the arranged meeting! The stark reality is that the football club, like many football clubs up and down the country, have no interest in working with a supporters trust, have no interest in fans interests. The WCFC Supporters Trust is not alone in this situation. With regards to Perdiswell, the reason Perdiswell was first brought to the fore, was that some years back, there were fears that the football club could possibly have to move from St Georges Lane, and that the Nunnery Way plan may not come to fruition. Of course we were assured by both the previous and present Chairman that that situation could not possibly happen, and that SMD would look after us. Nevertheless, as supporters , who wanted all of our supporters to have a solution which allowed for WCFC to be supported in Worcester, we looked to the future and looked for alternatives. When Nunnery Way unraveled, and the club was facing homelessness, we pitched Perdiswell as an alternative, and were prepared to work with the football club on any and all other alternatives that could be offered up. Our concern was always that the football club appeared to be doing nothing with regards to finding a new ground in Worcester. Unfortunately, for reasons that are unclear, even though the club never made any plans, they also never really wanted to back our plans for Perdiswell either. In order to work with the football club, the Supporters Trust created a Business Plan, which demonstrated a viable and sustainable proposition, for the development of a community stadium as a community owned club. This was pitched to the football club on many occasions. The club secretary along with the Board made amendments prior to it being published. So all sides should have been supportive of the Business Plan. Not the case, remember the Chairman's surprising prepared statement at the Fans Forum, dismissing the Business Plan, and doubting the credibility of the the ST proposition? If one party has no interest whatsoever in working with another, and in fact is dismissive of their very existence, then any leader would say the same thing "it ain't going to happen" and walk away. The football club have not needed the support of the Supporters Trust for the last 13 years, and they've coped very adequately without ST support. Ok, they may have lost a ground, £7 million, got screwed on a new ground development, made record losses year on year, been relegated , and also demoted a further two leagues due to the financial plight, but they've done alright. Every Supporters Trust throughout the land, has a remit and a responsibility to represent the interests of its members, and to properly represent the supporters of their club. Our role is not to represent the interests of the football club, especially when those interests impact on the supporters. We have no attachment with WCFC Ltd. and despite our efforts to get supporters represented in the Boardroom, we have been disregarded, and excluded from having a supporters voice. The Supporters Trust, as a CBS, is a transparent and fully accountable organisation. We have involved our members in every element of our decision making, regarding how we represent our members. We have even gone further by holding open meetings for all supporters as we believe in the supporter/stakeholder model. If our members voted that we should stop Perdiswell, we would. If our members put forward a motion to set up a phoenix club, we'd ask for those members to present the case, and go through a fully democratic process of discussion and debate over how that should move forward. The WCFC Supporters Trust was not set up to find a solution to Worcester City's ground problem, it was in existence many years before that, it was set up to provide a solution for Worcester City's constitution problem, which is responsible for Worcester City's financial problem (it can't raise sufficient capital through share issues) It just so happened that the ground issue arose, and no other bugger was looking to do anything, and the community stadium plan fitted nicely into the who community sporting club concept.
As Rich says, if you have a grievance, and feel that money is being used improperly by the Supporters Trust, then luckily for you, there is a clear process for you to follow. Contact Supporters Direct and let your grievance be known, if you do not wish to contact Board members of the Trust itself. I am sure that this grievance will be acted upon and dealt with in the right and proper manner.
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Oct 15, 2017 12:13:11 GMT
I would suggest that anyone with doubts about what the Supporters Trust are all about should take some time visiting Supporters Direct website supporters-direct.org/This is what we have been all about since our formation in 2004. Most of the documentation was also available on the old WCFC Supporters Trust website for members to be fully clear about why Supporters Trusts matter for the future governance in a sustainable and viable football club. If the Ltd. company want to raise funds for their business, then I would suggest that they consider a share issue, or a constitution change to enable investment. There is always of course a perfectly operational Supporters Club who are there to run raffles etc.
|
|
|
Post by maybe1day on Oct 15, 2017 12:47:15 GMT
This is the most sensible post and explanation i have read on this banter board, Nice one WHO..... I've lost times of the times that the Supporters Trust have tried to work with the football club , the number of attempts to negotiate on so many aspects, the number of times we've supported third party efforts to find a common goal. This has included support staff from Supporters Direct making a journey up from London to Worcester to meet with the Board, and the Chairman not attending the arranged meeting! The stark reality is that the football club, like many football clubs up and down the country, have no interest in working with a supporters trust, have no interest in fans interests. The WCFC Supporters Trust is not alone in this situation. With regards to Perdiswell, the reason Perdiswell was first brought to the fore, was that some years back, there were fears that the football club could possibly have to move from St Georges Lane, and that the Nunnery Way plan may not come to fruition. Of course we were assured by both the previous and present Chairman that that situation could not possibly happen, and that SMD would look after us. Nevertheless, as supporters , who wanted all of our supporters to have a solution which allowed for WCFC to be supported in Worcester, we looked to the future and looked for alternatives. When Nunnery Way unraveled, and the club was facing homelessness, we pitched Perdiswell as an alternative, and were prepared to work with the football club on any and all other alternatives that could be offered up. Our concern was always that the football club appeared to be doing nothing with regards to finding a new ground in Worcester. Unfortunately, for reasons that are unclear, even though the club never made any plans, they also never really wanted to back our plans for Perdiswell either. In order to work with the football club, the Supporters Trust created a Business Plan, which demonstrated a viable and sustainable proposition, for the development of a community stadium as a community owned club. This was pitched to the football club on many occasions. The club secretary along with the Board made amendments prior to it being published. So all sides should have been supportive of the Business Plan. Not the case, remember the Chairman's surprising prepared statement at the Fans Forum, dismissing the Business Plan, and doubting the credibility of the the ST proposition? If one party has no interest whatsoever in working with another, and in fact is dismissive of their very existence, then any leader would say the same thing "it ain't going to happen" and walk away. The football club have not needed the support of the Supporters Trust for the last 13 years, and they've coped very adequately without ST support. Ok, they may have lost a ground, £7 million, got screwed on a new ground development, made record losses year on year, been relegated , and also demoted a further two leagues due to the financial plight, but they've done alright. Every Supporters Trust throughout the land, has a remit and a responsibility to represent the interests of its members, and to properly represent the supporters of their club. Our role is not to represent the interests of the football club, especially when those interests impact on the supporters. We have no attachment with WCFC Ltd. and despite our efforts to get supporters represented in the Boardroom, we have been disregarded, and excluded from having a supporters voice. The Supporters Trust, as a CBS, is a transparent and fully accountable organisation. We have involved our members in every element of our decision making, regarding how we represent our members. We have even gone further by holding open meetings for all supporters as we believe in the supporter/stakeholder model. If our members voted that we should stop Perdiswell, we would. If our members put forward a motion to set up a phoenix club, we'd ask for those members to present the case, and go through a fully democratic process of discussion and debate over how that should move forward. The WCFC Supporters Trust was not set up to find a solution to Worcester City's ground problem, it was in existence many years before that, it was set up to provide a solution for Worcester City's constitution problem, which is responsible for Worcester City's financial problem (it can't raise sufficient capital through share issues) It just so happened that the ground issue arose, and no other bugger was looking to do anything, and the community stadium plan fitted nicely into the who community sporting club concept. As Rich says, if you have a grievance, and feel that money is being used improperly by the Supporters Trust, then luckily for you, there is a clear process for you to follow. Contact Supporters Direct and let your grievance be known, if you do not wish to contact Board members of the Trust itself. I am sure that this grievance will be acted upon and dealt with in the right and proper manner.
|
|
|
Post by Noboddy aka Lord Ealing on Oct 15, 2017 13:14:08 GMT
It breaks my heart when I hear Rob Crean admit he's had a "bellyful" of this affair. He and the others who have been fighting for a club that we supporters can call our own, should be saluted as heroes. Instead they receive constant snide criticism, and few constructive contributions. I'm surprised all those in the ST desperately fighting to rectify this disaster haven't just walked away in search of a quiet life.
An open debate regarding the future of WCFC is to be welcomed, but the constant disparaging of genuine efforts being made is disgraceful. When the club finally collapses, many people should hang their heads in shame. Rob is certainly not one of them.
|
|
|
Post by The sound and the fury on Oct 15, 2017 13:30:03 GMT
One would be forgiven for possibly thinking that Hampson is hanging on merely because there is something that needs to be hidden, something that can only be buried after a few years. Something that will cause considerable reputational damage to certain individuals who have been associated with the club and various transactions that have taken place regarding the sale of St.George's Lane? You don't need to be an investigative journalist to ask questions and to cast doubts. It's easy to see why some might be sceptical. There can be no other logical explanation for the intransigence and refusal to cooperate with the organisation dedicated to bringing the club home and securing its future, surely?
|
|
|
Post by B*ue dragonstander on Oct 15, 2017 13:58:16 GMT
One might teej one very well might.
As for the recent posts. Well done to Who?, rich and creaner for sticking with it through thin and thinner. To me it is obvious that the Chairman is pursuing a policy of divide and rule. Saying one thing and doing another ..in fact anything that prolongs his tenure as a truly unelected representative of no one except those whose pull his apron strings.
So just remember not to play his game ...which is certainly not soccer..and stay true to the aims and objectives espoused by the trust and so helpfully explained in this thread.
Forza Creaner & co !!!
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Oct 15, 2017 14:01:17 GMT
Compare and contrast with a club like Bradford Park Avenue. BPA were owned by Gareth Roberts, he had over 50% share ownership, they had a number of large shareholders such as John Dean, but they realised that in order for the business to survive, and to grow, they had to do a number of things. They needed cash injection, they needed community links, they needed a business plan to move forward. So Gareth could have thrown in a couple of hundred grand to prop things up, but instead , they thought laterally. They were competing with both Bradford City, and Bradford Bulls for both revenue share and community interest. They could clearly not compete with Bradford City, but they were also watching Bradford Bulls going through takeovers, cash injection, and administration! So they did something different. They converted to a CBS! Gareth converted his (worthless) £250,000 investment in community shares, and offered for the community of Bradford, shares in their own club. Its not a takeover, its not a coup, and Gareth Roberts, John Dean, John Mosley etc. still sit on the Board, but are now accountable to every single one of their members, and have the same voting rights as every single one of their members. I know about all this because I picked up the phone and spoke to these guys, about what they were doing, and why they were doing it. You see, we talk with other clubs, we find out how and why, and its not all plain sailing. We've proposed to the Board that they talk with other clubs, and guess what? they just refuse to do it.
Lord Ealing - what on earth would I do with a quiet life? The FCUM family game summed up everything for me. The Supporters Trust were there when Aggborough opened , putting up a gazebo, setting out the flags, putting up signs letting everyone know, best behaviour as this is a family day. We were there helping all of the junior teams get kids round the ground, and making sure it was an enjoyable day for a bumper crowd. And what of the Board? Well, I remember heading for the Boardroom at half time with just one purpose in mind, to talk with Andy Walsh, the Chairman of FCUM. I found him talking with Hampson, and when Hampson got bored and walked away, he asked who he was. I told him he was our Chairman, he was non-plussed! Colin Layland wandered over and told me to grab myself a piece of apple pie because it was really good! and he was having another slice! He was very excited! Apple Pie! After the game, we spent a lot of time packing everything away, saying goodbye to friends at FCUM, and myself and Rob wheeled the gazebo around to a storage area, as we passed under the main stand, we looked up at the Boardroom, and there was Hampson and Layland, still enjoying their free apple pie! Not a thought of helping us out, not a thank you for organsing such a great family day, with a bumper crowd. And......to this day, Colin Layland still says that it was not a success!!
|
|
|
Post by B*ue dragonstander on Oct 15, 2017 14:15:09 GMT
Oh and btw Jimbo I d join you at Pitchcroft and put my tenner in the bucket too. At least we could walk to the ground and have a couple of ales before the match without worrying about driving after. I reckon we d get more than 300 too. I don't think the time is right yet though. I think we need to wait for the Perdiswell planning application to be determined and if that is positive but there is no genuine positive action from the limited company that offers a realistic and viable plan to secure the future of City FC for future generations to enjoy then it would be the right time to start seriously planning for the formation of Worcester St George FC and prepare to slay a rather ineffectual and puny dragon.
|
|