|
Post by Woodenose on May 29, 2015 14:32:23 GMT
From the objectors (PPP ) web site. Planning Committee: While the agenda is not yet published, the next Planning Committee meeting is at 1.30 on 25th June. Unless the applicants (now the Supporters Trust 'with WCFC') withdraw, it seems sensible to put this date in your diary, as the plan could be decided on then.
We suggest the best they can expect is 'Application Deferred', unless the Planning Officer is going to give a VERY generous benefit of the doubt concerning all the gaps, technical queries and advice. Even if that does happen, the Committee may still throw it out, not wanting to be associated with such an unpopular and ill-thought out plan (see below).
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on May 28, 2015 8:16:54 GMT
Here here! Well done the Warriors and what an amazing couple of games. I have never understood the rugby v football rivalry (is it a jealousy thing?). I think it's a bit sad if you can't be happy for your own city's success. I enjoy watching both sports but am primarily Worcester through and through. It is great to have Worcester represented in the Premiership and for me it is a real positive for the city. Could not agree more, anyone who likes sport (or not ) should be proud of the achievements of The Warriors and the Cricket team as both are in the top flight of their sport. Why certain Worcester people do not want WCFC back is beyond me
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on May 21, 2015 21:00:21 GMT
Good news as the whole meeting showed that there have to be genuine planning reasons to refuse an application if the Planning officers suggest approval. Not able to refuse because it would be unpopular i.e Middle Battenhall Farm. I think our turn is next month. Looking at the other planning for Battenhall Farm for 200 houses there was a lot of opposision to it but it is still not settled ,and they had a lot more opposision against it than we do for the stadium .So I think we should be optimistic? The reasons suggested by councillors for refusing it are: Flood risk, damage to the green network, loss of landscape with historical value, damage to the city's heritage, and inconsistency with the SWDP. I don't think many of these would apply to the football stadium
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on May 21, 2015 13:43:06 GMT
Don't hold out too many hopes. Alan Amos's somewhat interesting political history and track record of changing political parties shows the man up for what he is, and based on this, he is a little man of little credibility. Looking at the Planning Committee Agenda for his first meeting, I see that as well as having the proposed 200 house development at Middle Battenhall Farm ( very contentious ) as item 9, item 10 is about developing the land at Nunnery Way ( Boddy's field of dreams ) once earmarked for the WCFC ground except now without the ground, item 11 is about the new Swimming Pool at Perdiswell, and item 13 about developing the Cinderella Ground in St Johns. committee.cityofworcester.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=130&MId=3529&Ver=4............and judging by previous committee minutes, today's meeting could be all over by 3 o'clock! (they'll all want to get off early to beat the traffic). So with a meeting start time of 1.30 there isn't a great deal of 'discussion' time available per topic! The outcome of the leisure centre agenda item might give us a clue as to the overall thinking. Maybe WCFC will come up as an AOB item? Dodger. The meeting is expected to get underway at around 3pm today.
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on May 19, 2015 16:17:03 GMT
I did note that yesterday I did have a letter printed in the Worcester News asking questions of why there are no PPP or other protesters writing letters and making noises in opposition to the Swimming Pool plans - as opposed to the stadium stuff... It is because they WANT the pool, as it will boost their house prices by about 2%.PPP only want to protect Perdiswell from the Football Stadium. Some of the PPP supporters are footy fans, but will not support their local team. Hypocrites comes to mind
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on May 12, 2015 19:29:28 GMT
I was going to ask if there were plans for an under 65 trial. Then I thought that once we return home it might be a good idea to have a "seniors" element to the club. A great way to integrate with the community. Maybe a few nimbys might get roped in. Good publicity as well. Over 65s please, 15 mins each way, with a 30 min half time break for medication.
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on May 11, 2015 8:55:54 GMT
It probably means no chance in hell tbf! Actually - I would not be so pessimistic! One of the writers who worked with me on the University newspaper emailed all of the City Council back in March when the plans had been submitted. The answers we received back from the Conservative block were universally in support of the plans (off the record - as most could not comment as it was in the planning process) and getting the club back in the City - with the exception of two members. Simon Geraghty (who as leader of the Council did not wish to set out a position either way but was supportive) - and Gareth Jones (who is the re-elected representative for the area around Perdiswell - an individual who apparently was in support of the plans when they were first on the table a couple of years ago. It now looks like under pressure from the groups like PPP and others that he has U-Turned to try to keep these lot happy and voting) Thank you for that info.It does help to reassure supporters.Looking at the objections from PPP ,there is no real argument ,only that some people might be "put out" by some noise and lighting.There is no fundamental reason why this should not be passed.
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on May 6, 2015 9:26:22 GMT
And don't forget - if you live in St Stephens Ward - then vote for the Independent Candidate Halvorsen (myself) in the City Council Elections - I am running on the support for this whole plan - against a Conservative candidate (and sitting Councillor) who is dead against the proposal... kthalvorsen.wordpress.com/It's a tough one for you against the Tory candidate but I wish you every success. As for the other wards support the party that supports WCFC and in the General vote for Joy,who is an avid City supporter Thanks
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on May 5, 2015 16:05:26 GMT
Taken from the PPP page. Worcester FC Trust "Sustainable Planning Nonsense" The Cyclists Touring Club stated in application P12M0470 (swimming pool application) consultee comment 24/01/13 and endorsed 24/01/13 Highways Comments that the current cycle network around the canal towpaths and footpaths needs "safety improvement" and is far from ideal, plus the relocation of the swimming pool will inevitably result in increased car use. The Football Stadium Design, Access and Transport statements bases its whole application on "sustainable travel and access" via these routes. This stadium therefore would only increase the risk of pedestrian and cyclist safety even more. Why have this national body of experts not been consulted by the Supporters Trust or was this key fact ignored? It would be nice if some of our "councillors elect" considered the experts opinions and facts before backing a flawed and inaccurate emotional application.
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Apr 30, 2015 15:58:57 GMT
It is not me that thinks it misconceived, it is a quote from the objectors web page. I hope every thing goes to plan,and I will be Voting Labour as they are the only party that seem to support our Football Club
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Apr 30, 2015 13:54:33 GMT
From the objectors web page (PPP More problems. The Conservation Area Advisory Committee comments are up online. Aside from being "not convinced" about the parking and pointing out the plans are drawn wrong, they raise more serious but equally downplayed/glossed over issues.
They have "fundamental objections to the location as it was too close to the canal" - it's only going to get closer when they move it out the way of the pool car park and further up the park.
They "fundamentally objected to the increased level of lighting in respect of the dark canal corridor" - important stuff PPP supporters have mentioned.
Lastly, if least importantly, they "objected to the colour scheme, which it considered to be unnecessarily garish"!
They recommend REFUSAL.
"All part of the process"? Or will the stadium fans now start to look long and hard at this misconceived plan? )
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Apr 30, 2015 13:30:33 GMT
Perhaps we could call it Victory Park if permission is granted, but reading this on the objectors web site I am starting to have doubts. More problems. The Conservation Area Advisory Committee comments are up online. Aside from being "not convinced" about the parking and pointing out the plans are drawn wrong, they raise more serious but equally downplayed/glossed over issues.
They have "fundamental objections to the location as it was too close to the canal" - it's only going to get closer when they move it out the way of the pool car park and further up the park.
They "fundamentally objected to the increased level of lighting in respect of the dark canal corridor" - important stuff PPP supporters have mentioned.
Lastly, if least importantly, they "objected to the colour scheme, which it considered to be unnecessarily garish"!
They recommend REFUSAL.
"All part of the process"? Or will the stadium fans now start to look long and hard at this misconceived plan?
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Apr 24, 2015 7:46:39 GMT
Totally agree the City and Fans have had a exciting season and all credit to Carl and his team of dedicated back room staff.Carl you are a Credit to WCFC and here's to next season
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Apr 23, 2015 18:15:42 GMT
Early days I know but who do we think City should try to get for pre-season friendlies? I'm not sure if playing any at Soggborough involves additional ground fees/rent payable to Kiddy (as the season won't have started) or indeed if the 'relayed properly this time' pitch will be ready to play on. Either way, which fixtures could we possible get - Coventry, Scunny, Barnsley??? How about Hereford? Dodger. I don't think the Kiddie boys will let us play any friendlies at Soggrass as they said NO last season, we had to play all friendlies away
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Apr 23, 2015 13:04:59 GMT
Consultee Comment 21-04-15 Worcestershire County Council Transport planning unit Consultee Comment 21-04-15 Worcestershire County Council strateic planning and environmental policy manager These comments are not in our favour, it looks like there is still work to be done
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Apr 19, 2015 10:30:32 GMT
Have you seen the 8 April objection letter on the planning application site from Ward Councillor Gareth Jones? This guy needs to go back to school and learn how to construct proper sentences and spell correctly (what exactly is a 'Fun Fare'?). His letter is just a string of statements without any coherent arguments. I'm so glad he doesn't represent me. Yes I have read it, Clr Jones is trying to earn votes in the May elections. He also helped to get the Northwick closed down as an entertainment venue by taking xxx pictures of couples. He just likes the quiet life.He also supported the City(Gold Bond Member) when they were at "The Lane" and as soon as an application to build at Perdiswell was put in he suddenly stopped.
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Apr 9, 2015 15:39:09 GMT
Sport England are statuary consultees and are asked for their views when land which is considered as primary sports usage, such as Perdiswell, is considered as part of any planning application. This is the normal process and we were aware that SE would seek clarification on certain points. In fact in the pre application communication with SE they advised us to liaise with WCC and the pool development team for example. This was beneficial to us and the pool people. This SE query is the next step and we have formulated a response which will go back to SE via WCC. If SE want any further information then they will get what they need from us. Don't panic, this is part of the process! Good news I can stop taking the pills now I see that Lord Faulkner of Worcester is supporting the application
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Apr 8, 2015 19:51:54 GMT
Sport England are statuary consultees and are asked for their views when land which is considered as primary sports usage, such as Perdiswell, is considered as part of any planning application. This is the normal process and we were aware that SE would seek clarification on certain points. In fact in the pre application communication with SE they advised us to liaise with WCC and the pool development team for example. This was beneficial to us and the pool people. This SE query is the next step and we have formulated a response which will go back to SE via WCC. If SE want any further information then they will get what they need from us. Don't panic, this is part of the process! Good news I can stop taking the pills now
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Apr 7, 2015 22:18:45 GMT
Sport England don't seem to be happy with the timing of the application (see comments added today on the Council's planning website). Don't we need these guys onside for a grant?? QUOTE Summary: Sport England considers that the applicant should withdraw the application until the findings of the emerging Playing Pitch Strategy are known and to allow the shortfall of information to be addressed. If the applicant is unwilling to withdraw the application then Sport England wish to issue a holding objection to the application on the basis that the application is premature and that we are unable to make a substantive response based on the information available. QUOTE From the objectors Protect Perdiswell Park Today, Sport England's comment on the application was published. It said it considers the site to be good for a football 'hub' in terms of access and that Worcester needs one new 3G artificial pitch at least. It also says the plans look wrong and are missing information, they want to meet the Trust and architect to discuss concerns over the layout, they wonder how the place will be funded (partly by them, we have been told?) and how the grass pitches figure in the plans (these are pictured but not mentioned in the text). There has been a suggestion, made here once or twice, that the need for new football facilities is not proven. They continue: "Sport England recommends that the applicant withdraws the application until the findings of the emerging Playing Pitch Strategy are known and to allow the shortfall of information to be addressed. Some of these issues have previously been raised [by] Sport England during pre-application discussions. If the applicant is unwilling to withdraw the application, then Sport England wish to issue a holding objection to this application on the basis that the application is premature and that we are unable to provide a substantive response based on the information supplied. Worcester City Council’s plans to redevelop the leisure centre should be given greater consideration." Still some way to go then.
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Apr 6, 2015 17:49:47 GMT
For a New Stadium At Perdiswell Park - fans app Media News! BBC Hereford and Worcester will be doing an interview with PPP members at about 0815 tomorrow morning This might be worth listening to. Hope they get a member of the trust to do a piece on H&W
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Apr 3, 2015 11:11:03 GMT
I decided to have a browse through some of the comments about the planning application on the Council website. The majority seem to be positive. Looking at the names and addresses of those who had commented it made me wonder if any of our current management or playing staff were being encouraged to add their comments. Just a thought but I'm not sure if it would be right and proper for people who are so close to the Club to comment. Even some locals are supporting the move, so are others, but have written to the council rather than post a comment with name and address .I am sure all of the management/staff have given the council their opinions
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Apr 1, 2015 14:50:34 GMT
Bristol Rovers 2,500 what will be Kidderminster's 2,000? Capacity is over 6,000. KH could have had a lot more if they thought about it better. It will be interesting to see their attendance
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Apr 1, 2015 14:43:43 GMT
So, if the staff (presumably including non players?) haven't been paid then they also won't be paid this week either as KHFC are relying on a bumper gate for the Bristol game to smooth things over. Being optimistic about the sums..........BR have 2,500 tickets allocated and will probably easily sell out, if not done so already. Their support will no doubt include concessions and youngsters so working on an average price of, say, £12 per fan, this gives an income of £30,000. Quite substantial, as is. Couple this £12 per fan with approx 500 KH supporters (non season ticket holders) and that adds a further £6,000. Total £36,000. Presumably there will be additional stewarding costs to consider and is there also an obligation to pay for additional policing costs? There may be more than 'one man and his dog' needed outside Captain Cod? If so, £36,000 doesn't look so lucrative. What if the stewards decide to take the day off as they haven't been paid? What if the players refuse to play? Dodger.
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Mar 30, 2015 14:05:04 GMT
The Premier League has combined with the Football Association and the Government to invest in grassroots facilities.
A day after the 20 top-flight clubs pledged to set aside at least £1billion of television money to the football pyramid outside of the top division from next year, Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore, FA chairman Greg Dyke and sports minister Helen Grant appeared at Evelyn Grace Academy in Brixton, south-west London.
A joint initiative to build more 3G pitches in 150 sport hubs across 30 cities over the next five years was announced.
Scudamore said: "The Government's initiative is brilliant news for the grassroots of the game and we will work with them as a committed partner to ensure that the scheme is implemented as rapidly as possible.
"The clubs, when meeting yesterday, identified grassroots facilities as one of their five key strategic priorities, with detailed funding commitments to be announced towards the end of the year."
Last updated Fri 27 Mar 2015
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Mar 30, 2015 12:01:34 GMT
Not being a member of the supporters club, (do we still have one) but I'm sure they used to organise away travel, so do they no longer ? If not, wouldn't it be better to organise that or a 'committee' rather than an individual to take the responsibility & possible loss ? I'd love to help, but due to personal circumstances my away travel has to be a last minute thing. If there was a method of offering transport to others in my position I'd be more than willing to post a message..... But it's not regular & usually just in time to get to a match in time for kick off & as I'm driving I like to leave for home straight after the final whistle. There is still a supporters club that run a coach to selected games, it is a 35 seater but it is never full so runs at a loss. It is organised by one person Keith Chambers. I think this is a little outdated and needs someone with the skill and desire to take on a project of this type, perhaps working together?
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Mar 25, 2015 20:18:02 GMT
Some will move on to better things and some will stay. One things for sure we will finish 10th or below. 31 years in the same league, is that progress? I don't think so, mediocre at best. Yes we are surviving and that's all, is that entertainment for the faithful and enough to draw more fans in,no it isn't. I'm not being critical,just honest I've seen it for 30+ years. First of all I think you will be surprised how high the city will finish. I agree about surviving but there has been plenty of entertainment one way or another this season. I think if the new plans are accepted and the club is trust run, then a new and more exciting era can begin
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Mar 24, 2015 19:35:15 GMT
Quote. As much as I love the CITY, £13 is more than enough to watch them play, anymore and I think more people will stay away, so be careful as to not bite the hand that feeds you, looking to increase crowds is not achieved by increasing prices unquote. This is a quote from the fans app page . This I believe is echoed by several supporters our prices are one of the highest in this league. If planning permission is granted then lets keep it the same for next season. It is the night games that need to be addressed although this season with the state of the pitch there have been more night games than usual ,so hopefully if/when the pitch is improved there will be less. Transport seems to be the biggest issue.
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Mar 19, 2015 16:37:38 GMT
FWP are great, I've been using them for a few years now. If you go on the league table tab, it has an option to see the 'predicted final table' going off past results/form (as I understand it) It's pretty accurate by this time of the year where your team will finish (about 10th for city) For those thinking 10th isn't a great prediction just think, at the start of last season we were hoping to stay in the division and did that, to be just one year on from that and to have had a decent cup run and be in the top half of the league, wow have we done well. Pos Team P W L D F A GD PTS C Barrow 42 26 10 6 77 41 +36 88 2 AFC Fylde 42 25 10 7 86 36 +50 85 3 Guiseley 42 24 9 9 67 38 +29 81 4 Boston United 42 20 12 10 74 53 +21 72 5 Tamworth 42 19 13 10 62 45 +17 70 6 Hednesford Town 42 19 12 11 63 41 +22 69 7 Stockport County 42 19 9 14 59 52 +7 66 8 Worcester City 42 18 11 13 49 44 +5 65 The percentage figures given are the probabilities calculated for a home win, a draw and an away win Saturday 21st March 2015 H D A Worcester City 1 1 Barrow 39.9% 28.0% 32.1% Saturday 28th March 2015 H D A Boston United 1 0 Worcester City 62.2% 21.4% 16.4% Saturday 4th April 2015 H D A Lowestoft Town 1 0 Worcester City 50.0% 30.0% 20.0% Tuesday 7th April 2015 H D A Worcester City 1 0 Brackley Town 66.1% 21.3% 12.5% Saturday 11th April 2015 H D A Worcester City 2 0 Hyde 83.6% 11.4% 5.0% Tuesday 14th April 2015 H D A Worcester City 1 0 Gloucester City 59.6% 22.7% 17.7% Saturday 18th April 2015 H D A Bradford Park Avenue 1 0 Worcester City 41.1% 29.3% 29.6% Saturday 25th April 2015 H D A Worcester City 1 0 Colwyn Bay 51.5% 26.7% 21.7%
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Mar 2, 2015 17:18:22 GMT
Facilities-wise, probably KHFC........BUT as mentioned in many posts, financials have to be the key. We've had a good cup run with large support, TV monies, and cash from player sales (arguably based on being showcased during the cup run). At this moment in time we are probably 'fairly sound' as far as finance goes. What the maths need to tell us is "What would our financial position be like if we did not have this windfall season?". IF KHFC, assuming they will still be a going concern after tonight's AGM, are looking to hike the rent to improve their lot, then maybe we should close the door completely and look to a smaller venue.......again, assuming it's profitable option. After all, it's only a short term upheaval. Dodger. What if City's meeting with the shareholders fail to get the result they need to move on, or,the planning application is turned down? do we still look at ground sharing? so it might be a little longer than a short term upheaval. But I hope not
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Mar 2, 2015 10:33:36 GMT
From the 'Solihull Moors' thread and the fact that it was a Tuesday night fixture (although applies to any evening fixture)............ "The concern will be the size of the crowd as with no bus service from Worcester and train times back to Worcester meaning a late homecoming for fans, there may only be a couple hundred in attendance. Although there's a train departing Kidder at 9.36, you'd need to get your skates on to catch it whilst the next one is not until 10.38. Whilst this might mean a couple of extra pints in the King & Castle, it also makes for an 11 o'clock arrival at Worcester stations". Maybe an earlier kick-off (if allowed by the league) say at 19.30 may give supporters a sporting chance to catch that 21.36 train back to Worcester? Dodger. But when you arrive back in Worcester there are no buses(very poor service) to take you home.£7/8 for a taxi or a 3 mile walk home. No thanks
|
|