|
|
Post by worcesternews on Oct 10, 2008 10:13:27 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by birdfeeder on Oct 10, 2008 11:32:21 GMT
Yes we know and what they are hopping to have in enabling development,just ask WCFST they will tell you more then the football club. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2008 11:51:40 GMT
Let me guess - hotel? restaurant? office facilities? car showrooms??
Its B&Q all over again, been there, done that, got the rejection from the inspector!!!
|
|
cg
Squad Member
Posts: 279 
|
Post by cg on Oct 10, 2008 13:17:37 GMT
I am particualrly keen to see what the "community-based" facilities are going to be. Oh, by the way, that doesn't include a private members gym, pub, restaurant or hotel, Mr Boddy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2008 14:01:09 GMT
From what I can make out from what is released, there are NO community-based facilities on the site other than enabling development facilities. Within the structure of the football club, what community facilities are being offered Mr Boddy?
Listening to the recording of the shareholders meeting earlier I noted the following
1. The football ground will be built prior to any enabling development being built - therefore when first opened, the football club will need to be able to support itself.
2. When asked the question by Mr Andy Bullock "Will the sale of the ground be enough to cover the debt, buy the land and build the stadium?" Mr alan Williams answered "Not exactly, there will be a shortfall!"
3. With this in mind, and the fact that there will be no cash in the bank, how does the football club plan to operate without its own off-field revenue generating facilities?
4. Now the fun starts - There will be no overage - this means that the enabling development will not produce any additional profit share revenue for the football club - so how does the club plan to operate without any overage?
5. St. Modwens talk about building a ground to Football League standard, but later Mr Williams says that phase one will be built to Blue Square Premier standard. Okay, but without any overage, how will thje ground be further developed to Football League standard?
This isn't scaremongering arseholes making these comments, these are comments being made by members of the project team themselves!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Bstander on Oct 11, 2008 14:58:53 GMT
Looks like the resident(s) are revolting already!
Reply taken from the comments section from WN online
Andrew Guy, says...
10:11am Sat 11 Oct 08
Firstly, may I express my own and I suspect Worcester’s collective sadness at the plight of WCFC. I really don't want to see them go under. However, the Board couldn't run a bath and the chances of WCFC surviving now seem very slim indeed.
The proposal to move to Nunnery Way is unlikely to succeed, for the following reasons:
1. The Local Plan states (Policy CLT32): "Ancillary developments of a non retail sports/leisure nature would be acceptable within the design framework of a single stadium building."
2. The Local Plan states (Policy NE11): "Within the M5 Protection Corridor ... planning permission will not be granted for development unless it is appropriate to a rural area, has no adverse impact on the open and essentially undeveloped character of the land, and protects the setting of the city. Acceptable development will include local playing fields, cemeteries and extensions to existing dwellings."
3. David Hallmark's proposed amendments to the Local Plan to permit enabling development were unsuccessful. Here's how Property Week reported the outcome (16/04/08): "Clive Richardson, inspector at the local plan inquiry, practically laughed the scheme out of court."
4. The local residents, myself included, will put up stiff resistance – and the precedence of two public inquiries, plus the Local Plan, are on our side.
5. WCFC just hasn’t got the finances. £2million in debt, more than 10% of its only asset (St George’s Lane) already promised to the bank, collapsing property prices and a property developer (St Modwen) unlikely to feel charitable, the best WCFC could afford on Nunnery Way might be a basic shed or two without any means of earning additional income, so the debts will just start rising again. That’s assuming the current debt was cleared, which looks near impossible under the economic conditions we’ll be facing over the next few years. Besides, even if enabling development were permitted, St Modwen would be unlikely to generate much (if anything) in rental income or from sales and I can’t imagine St Modwen undertaking projects that will lose them more money. (Their share-price has just crumbled away over the last few months.)
6. Environmentally, a second concrete stadium (and whatever else WCFC imagines it might get as enabling development) is unsustainable and unjustifiable so close to Sixways. Out of town retail parks are no longer considered responsible land-use.
In summary, the vanity and folly of the remaining directors at WCFC has seen umpteen resignations from the board in recent months and rising disquiet amongst shareholders and supporters alike. The WCFC board have no moral mandate for embarking on a project that will undoubtedly fail and lead to the demise of a much-loved and historic football club. Bemused at this voluntary spiralling decent into oblivion, allow me to finish with some questions:
What can possibly be motivating their single-minded pursuit of self-destruction? Surely, a ground-share at Sixways could be made to work, somehow? Even staying put at St George’s Lane surely makes more sense, with a sale and lease-back of the ground? Have the WCFC board not actually read the relevant policies in the Local Plan yet, after all these years? Have they not taken (or heeded) professional advice on the issues? Do they not remember the outcome of the last attempt to justify enabling development? Why do they imagine themselves to be big-time tycoons when WCFC needs to make careful decisions about its future and the use of its scarce resources, just like any other (with due respect) small business?
With apologies to Tennyson: “When can their glory fade? / O the wild charge they made!”
Andrew Guy, says...
10:13am Sat 11 Oct 08
Erratum: Property Week 16/04/04
|
|
|
|
Post by dorothy on Oct 11, 2008 18:43:13 GMT
Can't argue with that.
|
|
|
|
Post by richwidd on Oct 13, 2008 10:05:35 GMT
Looks like the resident(s) are revolting already!
Reply taken from the comments section from WN onlineAndrew Guy, says...
10:11am Sat 11 Oct 08
Firstly, may I express my own and I suspect Worcester’s collective sadness at the plight of WCFC. I really don't want to see them go under. However, the Board couldn't run a bath and the chances of WCFC surviving now seem very slim indeed.
The proposal to move to Nunnery Way is unlikely to succeed, for the following reasons:
1. The Local Plan states (Policy CLT32): "Ancillary developments of a non retail sports/leisure nature would be acceptable within the design framework of a single stadium building."
2. The Local Plan states (Policy NE11): "Within the M5 Protection Corridor ... planning permission will not be granted for development unless it is appropriate to a rural area, has no adverse impact on the open and essentially undeveloped character of the land, and protects the setting of the city. Acceptable development will include local playing fields, cemeteries and extensions to existing dwellings."
3. David Hallmark's proposed amendments to the Local Plan to permit enabling development were unsuccessful. Here's how Property Week reported the outcome (16/04/08): "Clive Richardson, inspector at the local plan inquiry, practically laughed the scheme out of court."
4. The local residents, myself included, will put up stiff resistance – and the precedence of two public inquiries, plus the Local Plan, are on our side.
5. WCFC just hasn’t got the finances. £2million in debt, more than 10% of its only asset (St George’s Lane) already promised to the bank, collapsing property prices and a property developer (St Modwen) unlikely to feel charitable, the best WCFC could afford on Nunnery Way might be a basic shed or two without any means of earning additional income, so the debts will just start rising again. That’s assuming the current debt was cleared, which looks near impossible under the economic conditions we’ll be facing over the next few years. Besides, even if enabling development were permitted, St Modwen would be unlikely to generate much (if anything) in rental income or from sales and I can’t imagine St Modwen undertaking projects that will lose them more money. (Their share-price has just crumbled away over the last few months.)
6. Environmentally, a second concrete stadium (and whatever else WCFC imagines it might get as enabling development) is unsustainable and unjustifiable so close to Sixways. Out of town retail parks are no longer considered responsible land-use.
In summary, the vanity and folly of the remaining directors at WCFC has seen umpteen resignations from the board in recent months and rising disquiet amongst shareholders and supporters alike. The WCFC board have no moral mandate for embarking on a project that will undoubtedly fail and lead to the demise of a much-loved and historic football club. Bemused at this voluntary spiralling decent into oblivion, allow me to finish with some questions:
What can possibly be motivating their single-minded pursuit of self-destruction? Surely, a ground-share at Sixways could be made to work, somehow? Even staying put at St George’s Lane surely makes more sense, with a sale and lease-back of the ground? Have the WCFC board not actually read the relevant policies in the Local Plan yet, after all these years? Have they not taken (or heeded) professional advice on the issues? Do they not remember the outcome of the last attempt to justify enabling development? Why do they imagine themselves to be big-time tycoons when WCFC needs to make careful decisions about its future and the use of its scarce resources, just like any other (with due respect) small business?
With apologies to Tennyson: “When can their glory fade? / O the wild charge they made!”
Andrew Guy, says...
10:13am Sat 11 Oct 08
Erratum: Property Week 16/04/04 The Stadium would not be the centrepiece of the development. It would be in a small corner of the site and the part it would occupy has gone down by over 50% in less than a year. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2008 10:22:13 GMT
Two little rumours I've heard are that the area allocated to WCFc is now something like 5.5 acres, and that the ground has been moved down next to the cattle market, with St Modwen retailers taking the prime location at the top end of the plot!
This can't be true, can it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony is not to despondent now. on Oct 13, 2008 21:30:11 GMT
Two little rumours I've heard are that the area allocated to WCFc is now something like 5.5 acres, and that the ground has been moved down next to the cattle market, with St Modwen retailers taking the prime location at the top end of the plot! This can't be true, can it? Quite possible!! |
|
andyc
Reserve Teamer
Posts: 60
|
Post by andyc on Oct 13, 2008 21:44:28 GMT
That doesn't sound right to me. Isn't the "top end" next to the cattle market, with the "bottom end" (the flattest bit) next to the roundabout that leads to the new office block that seems to have been empty for at least the last year? Makes you wonder who St Modwens think is going to take up the office space they intend to put on the site. If there's such a demand for office space close to the motorway how come what's already there hasn't been taken up?
|
|
|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on Oct 13, 2008 22:17:51 GMT
I would imagine that potential office tenants are already lined up, it's just the actual building of it that's the problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by suv on Oct 14, 2008 9:32:37 GMT
I would imagine that potential office tenants are already lined up, it's just the actual building of it that's the problem. I'm sure at one of the meetings it was commented that the Council were interested in the office space because of it's location being close to County Hall HQ. |
|
|
|
Post by birdfeeder on Oct 14, 2008 10:27:34 GMT
I would imagine that potential office tenants are already lined up, it's just the actual building of it that's the problem. I'm sure at one of the meetings it was commented that the Council were interested in the office space because of it's location being close to County Hall HQ. You are most likely right,but they forgot to tell them about the empty offices on the other side of the road. |
|
|
|
Post by gobby cow on Oct 16, 2008 12:40:14 GMT
I am bored to tears with all the empty promises, the new ground is never going to happen, the enabling development will never get passed and who is going to want to buy a tiny box crammed in to SGL when we will be all out of work soon thanks to greedy bankers and Niels!
When is the Booby going to wake up and smell the s***?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2008 13:49:01 GMT
To be fair to Boddy, its too late for him to back out now, he's in too deep. Unless of course he can negotiate his way out of both the St Modwen and Careys contracts, and negotiate new arrangements with the bank, and negotiate new arrangements withe other creditors, and sort out the social club (including the removal of his friend and fellow director) and find new investors and potential directors who can work with him, and regain the trust of volunteers, and clean the mascot costume, and put together a business strategy for development and revenue growth at SGL.
If he can't do all of that, then he needs Nunnery Way to save his skin - and of course its not going to happen. I think the only way it could happen would be if there was a change in land development policy laid out in the 2012 Local Plan, but can we wait that long?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2008 13:49:44 GMT
When is the Booby going to wake up and smell the s***? I thinks he's grown used to the smell by now!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Tony is not to despondent now. on Oct 16, 2008 15:28:34 GMT
Yes we know and what they are hopping to have in enabling development,just ask WCFST they will tell you more then the football club. Are they jumping from foot to foot, Birdfeeder? i.e Hopping! |
|
|
|
Post by Tony is not to despondent now. on Oct 16, 2008 15:32:03 GMT
Come, come, GC you cannot blame Niels for all the trouble in the financial according to the British media.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2008 15:51:47 GMT
Gobby can, like the rest of us on this board, blame anyone for anything at anytime.
|
|
|
|
Post by creaner on Oct 16, 2008 16:49:06 GMT
Come, come, GC you cannot blame Neils for all the trouble in the financial according to the British media. He'd probably be more miffed at spelling his name wrong  |
|
BDS
Squad Member
Posts: 201
|
Post by BDS on Oct 16, 2008 22:07:45 GMT
We should hear all about it at the AGM and through the website shortly so I am told
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony is not to despondent now. on Oct 17, 2008 8:15:04 GMT
We should hear all about it at the AGM and through the website shortly so I am told We live in hope!!! |
|
|
|
Post by birdfeeder on Oct 17, 2008 8:32:08 GMT
Come, come, GC you cannot blame Neils for all the trouble in the financial according to the British media. He'd probably be more miffed at spelling his name wrong I have that problem not just my name being spelt wrong a E instead of a A,but with spelling in general. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2008 12:11:10 GMT
Who in their right mind would spell Colin with an A !!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by birdfeeder on Oct 17, 2008 15:15:20 GMT
Who in their right mind would spell Colin with an A !!!! But if I was in yankee land it would have two L's I would be called Co-llin. |
|
|
|
Post by Tony is not to despondent now. on Oct 18, 2008 7:10:38 GMT
Creaner, I have rectified the error. Do you think Niels will forgive me?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony is not to despondent now. on Oct 18, 2008 13:52:25 GMT
He'd probably be more miffed at spelling his name wrong I have that problem not just my name being spelt wrong a E instead of a A,but with spelling in general. Unlike the town in Lancashire, the trucks and later the car building company. |
|
|
|
Post by Bstander on Oct 20, 2008 13:26:45 GMT
More from Mr Guy from today's WN.....pretty much recycled from the previous comment
Andrew Guy, says...
2:10pm Mon 20 Oct 08
Firstly, may I express my own and I suspect Worcester’s collective sadness at the plight of WCFC. I really don't want to see them go under. However, the Board couldn't run a bath and the chances of WCFC surviving now seem very slim indeed.
The proposal to move to Nunnery Way is unlikely to succeed, for the following reasons:
1. The Local Plan states (Policy CLT32): "Ancillary developments of a non retail sports/leisure nature would be acceptable within the design framework of a single stadium building."
2. The Local Plan states (Policy NE11): "Within the M5 Protection Corridor ... planning permission will not be granted for development unless it is appropriate to a rural area, has no adverse impact on the open and essentially undeveloped character of the land, and protects the setting of the city. Acceptable development will include local playing fields, cemeteries and extensions to existing dwellings."
3. David Hallmark's proposed amendments to the Local Plan to permit enabling development were unsuccessful. Here's how Property Week reported the outcome (16/04/04): "Clive Richardson, inspector at the local plan inquiry, practically laughed the scheme out of court."
4. The local residents, myself included, will put up stiff resistance – and the precedence of two public inquiries, plus the Local Plan, are on our side.
5. WCFC just hasn’t got the finances. £2million in debt, more than 10% of its only asset (St George’s Lane) already promised to the bank, collapsing property prices and a property developer (St Modwen) unlikely to feel charitable, the best WCFC could afford on Nunnery Way might be a basic shed or two without any means of earning additional income, so the debts will just start rising again. That’s assuming the current debt was cleared, which looks near impossible under the economic conditions we’ll be facing over the next few years. Besides, even if enabling development were permitted, St Modwen would be unlikely to generate much (if anything) in rental income or from sales and I can’t imagine St Modwen undertaking projects that will lose them more money. (Their share-price has just crumbled away over the last few months.)
6. Environmentally, a second concrete stadium (and whatever else WCFC imagines it might get as enabling development) is unsustainable and unjustifiable so close to Sixways. Out of town retail parks are no longer considered responsible land-use.
In summary, the vanity and folly of the remaining directors at WCFC has seen umpteen resignations from the board in recent months and rising disquiet amongst shareholders and supporters alike. The WCFC board have no moral mandate for embarking on a project that will undoubtedly fail and lead to the demise of a much-loved and historic football club. Bemused at this voluntary spiralling decent into oblivion, allow me to finish with some questions:
What can possibly be motivating their single-minded pursuit of self-destruction? Surely, a ground-share at Sixways could be made to work, somehow? Even staying put at St George’s Lane surely makes more sense, with a sale and lease-back of the ground? Have the WCFC board not actually read the relevant policies in the Local Plan yet, after all these years? Have they not taken (or heeded) professional advice on the issues? Do they not remember the outcome of the last attempt to justify enabling development? Why do they imagine themselves to be big-time tycoons when WCFC needs to make careful decisions about its future and the use of its scarce resources, just like any other (with due respect) small business?
With apologies to Tennyson: “When can their glory fade? / O the wild charge they made!”
|
|
wh
Youth Teamer
Posts: 44
|
Post by wh on Oct 20, 2008 13:46:50 GMT
the vanity and folly of the remaining directors at WCFC has seen umpteen resignations from the board in recent months and rising disquiet amongst shareholders and supporters alike. The WCFC board have no moral mandate for embarking on a project that will undoubtedly fail and lead to the demise of a much-loved and historic football club. Bemused at this voluntary spiralling decent into oblivion, allow me to finish with some questions:
What can possibly be motivating their single-minded pursuit of self-destruction? Surely, a ground-share at Sixways could be made to work, somehow? Even staying put at St George’s Lane surely makes more sense, with a sale and lease-back of the ground? Have the WCFC board not actually read the relevant policies in the Local Plan yet, after all these years? Have they not taken (or heeded) professional advice on the issues? Do they not remember the outcome of the last attempt to justify enabling development? Why do they imagine themselves to be big-time tycoons when WCFC needs to make careful decisions about its future and the use of its scarce resources, just like any other (with due respect) small business? I think you will find that it is the puppet master who is pulling all the strings at wcfc is not a board member. The board hang on his every word and yet again (as has happened before) he is leading them up yet another blind alley and the vanity by the way is all his. Yet he shy's away from the limelight in an effort to keep his reputation intact when the inevitable happens. They are just so desperate that they will cling to any shred of hope. |
|
