|
Post by worcesternews on Oct 21, 2008 14:40:49 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2008 14:41:43 GMT
And just how much of this design is to be built out of the overage due on the site??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2008 15:07:18 GMT
I'm not sure what overage is - but I'm certainly skeptical about the whole scheme.
|
|
|
Post by dorothy on Oct 21, 2008 16:29:01 GMT
When is the meeting and why haven't I as a shareholder been informed?
|
|
|
Post by birdfeeder on Oct 21, 2008 16:39:21 GMT
When is the meeting and why haven't I as a shareholder been informed? What meeting is that?
|
|
bj
Squad Member
Posts: 182
|
Post by bj on Oct 21, 2008 18:57:28 GMT
I realise that I am probably going to be in a minority here, but I was impressed. The presentation was a whole lot better than the amateur presentation at the shareholders meeting at SGL. That was awful - I was not surprised that the Board were party to such a poor presentation, but I was surprised at St Modwen. However, today we even had handouts and feedback forms! The stadium is what we can afford. It is small but adequate. I would have liked a training ground but we have to cut our cloth accordingly. In my opinion, if this is what we can afford, and we are debt free, it's a good place to start afresh. Before all the 'knockers' start appearing (if you'll excuse the expression) I do realise that this is probably a pipe dream. I have a feeling that if the Planners reject the Carey plan, even on the smallest technicality, Careys will walk away (or probably run as fast as they can) given the current climate. There will also, no doubt, be numerous objections from the local residents (how far is the nearest house?) regarding sound and light intrusion. After all, the football ground is likely to be noisier and brighter than the illuminated motorway that it will live next to! And obviously more intrusive than that famous live music arena at Sixways.
Without being at all optimistic, I hope it goes ahead. After seeing DB's interview there is obviously no Plan B. And well done to all those who contributed to today's presentation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2008 20:33:14 GMT
I realise that I am probably going to be in a minority here, but I was impressed. The presentation was a whole lot better than the amateur presentation at the shareholders meeting at SGL. That was awful - I was not surprised that the Board were party to such a poor presentation, but I was surprised at St Modwen. However, today we even had handouts and feedback forms! The stadium is what we can afford. It is small but adequate. I would have liked a training ground but we have to cut our cloth accordingly. In my opinion, if this is what we can afford, and we are debt free, it's a good place to start afresh. Before all the 'knockers' start appearing (if you'll excuse the expression) I do realise that this is probably a pipe dream. I have a feeling that if the Planners reject the Carey plan, even on the smallest technicality, Careys will walk away (or probably run as fast as they can) given the current climate. There will also, no doubt, be numerous objections from the local residents (how far is the nearest house?) regarding sound and light intrusion. After all, the football ground is likely to be noisier and brighter than the illuminated motorway that it will live next to! And obviously more intrusive than that famous live music arena at Sixways. Without being at all optimistic, I hope it goes ahead. After seeing DB's interview there is obviously no Plan B. And well done to all those who contributed to today's presentation. Be aware of a couple of things which came out of discussion this evening. The plan as seen is not affordable, the artists impressions of a four sided ground developed on all four sides cannot be built without overage from the other developments. Overage is profit share from revenue from the other units, and unfortunately the last forecsts for overage showed zero overage. I finally got confirmation that there is a phase one, and that phase one will incorporate the main stand ,and one terrace behind one goal, the rest will just be flat tarmac. When pressed about how the other sides will be developed, the answer was, they may not be, it depends on whether the team get promoted, or revenue streams are adequate to fund development, or if the market takes a big upturn. I am concerned about talk of being debt free - especially when tonight there was talk of St. Modwen making fairly substantial payments towards the "shortfall" and those payments being repaid via overage - and if there's no overage?? Interestingly, it appears that there is a belief that the planners are happy with the proposal, which includes 4 car showrooms, these must surely need A1 planning permission as retail units - although I was told that car showrooms aren't classed as retail! Strange, although of course they'll probably also need B8 if they're doing servicing and repairs! In terms of light and illumination, the football ground isn't the worry, the car showrooms are highly likely to be two storey glass buildings which will be illuminated 24 hours, thats the present design trend as laid down by the manufacturers globally. Most worrying though is that yet again the sums were given out, and they still don't add up. At best the figure provided was £3.7 million. So prepare for a two sided football ground, with no community facilities outside of a couple of catering rooms. Thats the lot! Nice drawings, but a totally unsustainable development, with huge risk, and dependencies on both Careys and St. Modwens. I also believe that Careys will walk away.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2008 20:36:52 GMT
Oh and also the site is now 5.5 acres as opposed to 7.5 acres, because the football club could not afford to purchase the proposed 7.5 acre site. So St. Modwen are now developing 14.5 acres for their use as opposed to 12.5 acres. Thats happened in the last couple of months, before the credit crunch turned into iminent recession. Could that plot be reduced to 4 acres at a later date? Oh yes it could.
|
|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on Oct 21, 2008 21:31:16 GMT
As suspected, pretty pictures but sadly largely fiction, based totally on lots of assumptions, particularly planning approval. As there is patently no Plan B with a diminishing project spend, my money's on going into administration. Dave Boddy's interview with Trevor Owens on H & W is illuminating for its general vagueness. As for WCFC attracting " a different market " to WRFC and WCCC to its proposed banqueting facilities, for a Club that struggles to provide a cheese roll at present, it beggars belief.
|
|
|
Post by birdfeeder on Oct 21, 2008 21:37:45 GMT
I am waiting to see what the planners say when they find no affordable housing on the SGL site?,but more water side apartments when they can not sell the ones at Diglis.
|
|
|
Post by clive67 on Oct 22, 2008 1:54:27 GMT
As suspected, pretty pictures but sadly largely fiction, based totally on lots of assumptions, particularly planning approval. As there is patently no Plan B with a diminishing project spend, my money's on going into administration. Dave Boddy's interview with Trevor Owens on H & W is illuminating for its general vagueness. As for WCFC attracting " a different market " to WRFC and WCCC to its proposed banqueting facilities, for a Club that struggles to provide a cheese roll at present, it beggars belief. You can hear the Dave Boddy interview (if you really want to!) on BBC Hereford & Worcester by clicking the link below; www.midlandsnonleaguefootball.co.uk/news_22648.html
|
|
|
Post by richwidd on Oct 22, 2008 7:53:23 GMT
"We are aiming to be in the stadium for the start of the 2010/2011 season" to quote Dave Boddy at the Whitehouse yesterday.
For a man who can't even produce a website, I simply don't believe him!!
"The Club cannot survive at SGL with its current debt and lack of income generating facilities." Another quote from Dave Boddy. I beg to differ - There are income generating facilities at SGL, unfortunately there are no income generating people at SGL. I take it that for the next two years before the alleged move, we will continue to trade as we currently are which is going to considerably drive the debt up.
An EGM notice was handed in to the Club office to John Prescott on Thursday 9th October signed by over 10% (when in fact only 5% is required following company law changes). If the club fail to call an EGM, then it will be held without the current Board in attendance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2008 8:00:58 GMT
"An EGM notice was handed in to the Club office to John Prescott on Thursday 9th October signed by over 10% (when in fact only 5% is required following company law changes). If the club fail to call an EGM, then it will be held without the current Board in attendance."
Good move. Now we can have a voice and vote. It may well be that the present board are voted back in (please no!) but if they are then at least the boil will have been burst. However the thought of this bunch taking us to some half-built, still debt-ridden location makes me want to walk away from the club.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2008 8:41:06 GMT
The EGM notice was handed in without any fanfare, without any publicity, its not a publicity stunt, its not some kind of powerplay to attract any kind of attention for any individuals, its a serious request for a meeting of shareholders, something that, for reasons unknown, the present board have been unwilling to do. It cannot be ignored by the board, although nothing has been heard back from them in two weeks since the request was formally presented. Hopefully we can at least force some answers to the questions that were ignored at the farcical shareholders meeting of 23rd May. I for one am still waiting for the presentation to shareholders of the business plan, I want to see if this stadium plan is viable, I want to see what the risks are. Even though its tediously boring I want to see the what risk assessment programme has been put into place, all the "what ifs" because there are a lot of them.
What if St. Modwen share price continues to fall at its present rate - dropped from around 500p per share in April to 200p per share now?
What if Carey have to change their plans to incorporate social housing?
What if there is strong objection to the planned enabling development on the site?
What if the planned timescale is pushed back by two years?
As stated, if the Board fail to call the EGM, then it will go ahead without them, in accordance with company law.
So on the 9th October the meeting request was presented and Section 304 Company Law 2006 states.
304. Directors' duty to call meetings required by members
(1) Directors required under section 303 to call a general meeting of the company must call a meeting-
(a) within 21 days from the date on which they become subject to the requirement, and
(b) to be held on a date not more than 28 days after the date of the notice convening the meeting.
So I make that October 30th as the deadline, and an EGM to be held by November 28th.
And can I just say that if the business plan can be presented that supports a viable proposition to build a fully costed football stadium to Football League status, together with revenue forecasts for the first 5 years of operation, and that the club will have a positive cash balance from Day one without loans from St. Modwen to manage any shortfall - then I will be supportive of this scheme. I don't believe that these shareholder assurances are excessive.
|
|
|
Post by Tony is not to despondent now. on Oct 22, 2008 9:16:09 GMT
When is the meeting and why haven't I as a shareholder been informed? Wasn't this presentation part of the planning process??
|
|
|
Post by Tony is not to despondent now. on Oct 22, 2008 9:32:12 GMT
Well roll on the EGM.
Boddy's statement that further development of stages 2 and 3 will be completed when further revenue is raised. They have no plane to raise revenue. The asset they have is being misused. The Legends Bar, losing approx. £20,000 per year, and no plans to attract more persons to use it to raise revenue.
All along the Chairman has said all will be well when we move to the new ground. Now we know that the club will not be debt free. Again promises of debt from the chairman, with loans from St. Modwen against overage. Come on Boddy, it ain't on!!!
|
|
|
Post by Tony is not to despondent now. on Oct 22, 2008 9:44:58 GMT
Having listened to Boddy's interview with BBC H&W, he uses the word 'if'. Does he realise how big a word 'if' is?
He was very vague about the future development of the ground.
He also stated that the phase one of the development of the ground is achievable without debt. That is contrary to what was stated at St. Georges's Lane in May, and at the Whitehouse Hotel public meeting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2008 10:27:19 GMT
The truth is they just don't know what the shortfall will be. They can't know what the shortfall will be, as they don't know things like the actual build cost, they don't know what the yield will be on the enabling developments, they don't know what the eventual sale price of SGL will be, they can't possibly know these things, therefore they can't possibly state that the move will be debt free - unless they can see a surplus of something like £500,000 to cover all possible or unforeseen expectations. For Mr Boddy to state that this move will leave the club debt-free, he would have to satisfy shareholders that there is a full and detailed business plan showing not just a debt-free position but a cash positive position from the day they are given the keys to the stadium. Yet again Mr Boddy is being made to look foolish, whilst those who are really pulling the strings just sit back and watch him perform!!
I am very interested to see how this 12 unit enabling development fits in with the Local Plan which states
In assessing the greenfield options account has been taken of areas of housing growth, public and private transport and access to the M5, as well as landscape quality, and it has been concluded that the site at Nunnery Way would be the most sustainable for allocating an all purpose stadium in a manner which would be appropriate to the Green Network. It would also serve as a venue to other sports/leisure users. This site would give good access in terms of public and private transport, and is large enough to provide adequate car parking and associated landscaping. It would also permit the redevelopment of the existing St George’s Lane ground for housing and thereby improve the environment of the surrounding residential area. However, in any development of this site, design will be of paramount importance. Developers will need to demonstrate that the scale and density is appropriate to the Green Network. Ancillary developments of a non retail sports/leisure nature would be acceptable within the design framework of a single stadium building.
|
|
|
Post by adycrean on Oct 22, 2008 11:41:19 GMT
As I read this thread - I tend to agree with bj. I don't have overhwelming confidence in Dave Boddy's ability to pull this off, and it feels like the whole thing carries many risks, and may indeed have a distinct possibility of failure
BUT I don't see what other real option he has? Creating a (albeit downscaled) new ground, selling SGL, trying to clear the debt allong the way feels like the only option.
I tire a little of the relentless Boddy bashing on this site. As I said, I'm not a fan of his and think things have been handled pretty badly in recent times. That said, we are where we are, and at least it feels like there is some momentum towards a solution....
|
|
|
Post by creaner on Oct 22, 2008 11:44:11 GMT
As I read this thread - I tend to agree with bj. I don't have overhwelming confidence in Dave Boddy's ability to pull this off, and it feels like the whole thing carries many risks, and may indeed have a distinct possibility of failure BUT I don't see what other real option he has? Creating a (albeit downscaled) new ground, selling SGL, trying to clear the debt allong the way feels like the only option. I tire a little of the relentless Boddy bashing on this site. As I said, I'm not a fan of his and think things have been handled pretty badly in recent times. That said, we are where we are, and at least it feels like there is some momentum towards a solution.... Ady, I'll ring you later to put you in the picture
|
|
|
Post by StopfordianWCFC on Oct 22, 2008 11:46:53 GMT
The Local Plan is getting rather old isn't it? I'm pretty sure that the City Council's views of the use of the Nunnery Way site are changing in response to the development pressure in the area.
Notwithstanding the above - a two sided ground? That would be horrific! I can't believe it has come to that....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2008 11:52:51 GMT
The Local Plan is getting rather old, it expires in 2011, when a new Local Plan will take its place. However, it was rather old at the time of the Public Enquiry, but that didn't stop Richardson refusing to allow the enabling development to go ahead.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2008 12:08:17 GMT
As I read this thread - I tend to agree with bj. I don't have overhwelming confidence in Dave Boddy's ability to pull this off, and it feels like the whole thing carries many risks, and may indeed have a distinct possibility of failure BUT I don't see what other real option he has? Creating a (albeit downscaled) new ground, selling SGL, trying to clear the debt allong the way feels like the only option. I tire a little of the relentless Boddy bashing on this site. As I said, I'm not a fan of his and think things have been handled pretty badly in recent times. That said, we are where we are, and at least it feels like there is some momentum towards a solution.... Therein lies the problem, in order for this to happen, you need to have overwhelming confidence in Mr Boddy.
|
|
|
Post by StopfordianWCFC on Oct 22, 2008 12:40:21 GMT
The Local Plan is getting rather old, it expires in 2011, when a new Local Plan will take its place. However, it was rather old at the time of the Public Enquiry, but that didn't stop Richardson refusing to allow the enabling development to go ahead. Do we know how the Local Development Framework (the replacement for local plans) is coming along? I notice the appropriate Local Plan policy for Nunnery Way is listed as being 'saved' on the City Council website but then in the subsequent document the policy description is not included. I assume this policy has been saved?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2008 13:29:19 GMT
I noticed that, but doesnt the subsequent document only cover those policies that aren't saved?
|
|
|
Post by Tony is not to despondent now. on Oct 22, 2008 13:30:46 GMT
A Burton type ground had been promised all along by the present chairman and backed by the present directors.
All I see from the proposed plans is a Solihull Borough type ground. UGH!!!!
|
|
wh
Youth Teamer
Posts: 44
|
Post by wh on Oct 22, 2008 13:47:47 GMT
and now DB has revealed there is a possibility of a ground share until we move in! as we all suspected we will probably be kicked out of SGL by Careys due to the clowns dragging their heels.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2008 13:54:42 GMT
"All I see from the proposed plans is a Solihull Borough type ground. UGH!!!!"
And that's only the "artist's impression!" Would you book a holiday in a hotel on the basis of seeing an artist's impression in a brochure? You'd know it probably hasn't been (and might never be) finished, and wouldn't look much like the tarted up design version even if it were. With just two sides built, and little chance of the other two ever being completed, it'll be a sub-standard version of Havant & Waterlooville's. Disgraceful.
With no way of funding future development for the other two sides we'll end up playing in what is little more than a car park. And what will we have gained? Clearance of the debts? Money to invest in the team? New sources of income? No, none of these. The net result of this farce is that we'll lose our home, lose our heritage and wave goodbye to our only asset.
Burton are run by people with a vision and business sense. That's the difference. That's the reason we're offered a windswept park-and-drive surrounded by car rental show rooms. No thanks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2008 13:57:42 GMT
"...a ground share until we move in!"
Does he mean like Hillingdon; Romford; Wealdstone etc etc.? Perhaps that should read "...a ground share until the money runs out and we wind the club up."
|
|
wh
Youth Teamer
Posts: 44
|
Post by wh on Oct 22, 2008 14:46:34 GMT
As explained by the project leader last night (recorded) there is considerable doubt if phase 2 will ever get built so here is closer to what we will get But in fairness it makes viewing from the bridge even more attractive with no horrible obstructions in the way.
|
|