|
|
Post by birdfeeder on Oct 22, 2008 15:08:15 GMT
I have got the plans to take to the trust board meeting tonight in the HKL if any trust member need to see them.
|
|
|
|
Post by wakefield on Oct 22, 2008 17:41:09 GMT
Just viewed the Worcester News Video and the proposed Stadium looks great. I presume it's been costed out and the figures are available for scrutiny.
Surely we should support and lobby for such a venue?
|
|
|
|
Post by StopfordianWCFC on Oct 22, 2008 18:32:49 GMT
Just viewed the Worcester News Video and the proposed Stadium looks great. I presume it's been costed out and the figures are available for scrutiny. Surely we should support and lobby for such a venue? Not when its only a two sided ground for the forseeable future. In my opinion that just makes us a laughing stock. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2008 20:40:16 GMT
Just viewed the Worcester News Video and the proposed Stadium looks great. I presume it's been costed out and the figures are available for scrutiny. Surely we should support and lobby for such a venue? I am assured that the figures for the venue have been costed out, and will have to be made available for the planning application as the stadium must be seen to be viable. However, the proposed stadium will be two sided only, and these two sides will cost £5 million, I have been told that there will probably not be enough money to build the two sides, and that the shortfall will be provided by St. Modwen. My calculations suggest that the shortfall could be between £800k and £500k dependant upon the amount of grants obtained. How that will be repaid I have no answer to. This information (apart from my own calculations) was provided by probably the most honest and forthright man on the project! The plan is for the football stadium to generate 70% of its revenue from non-footballing activities, so if the present level of footballing revenue represents 30% of income, and it is presently around £220,000, then that means that the site needs to generate in the region of £600,000 per annum in order to potentially fund the further development of the other two sides! I find it difficult to lobby for such a disappointing stadium, which will benefit St Modwen far more than WCFC, particularly when the Board promised that the JV with St Modwen would provide a 7.5 acre site with mixed use sports facilities in a four sided stadium. If WCFC mattered so much to St. Modwen, then those 2 additional acres would not have been a problem, and a real revenue generating facility such as a sports hall, or a fitness centre, belonging to the club could have been provided. I find it difficult to lobby for a stadium being promoted, not for the long term benefit of WCFC, but as the carrot to dangle in front of the bank to extend credit lines, whilst no other plans for revenue generation at SGL are being considered, in fact they have been rejected!! |
|
|
|
Post by wakefield on Oct 22, 2008 22:45:53 GMT
OK.
Disappointment aside.
What would be your solution then, presumably based upon your calculations?
St. Modwen, clearly, have reviewed the proposal and are fully and openly promoting the offer to the LPA.
Surely this needs the full backing of the supporters?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2008 6:42:26 GMT
You've hit the nail squarely on the head there Wakey - St. Modwen clearly have reviewed the proposal and are fully and openly promoting the offer to the LPA. But St. Modwen aren't building a football stadium with associated enabling development, they are promoting a retail park with associated enabling football ground. They don't give a hoot about what happens to WCFC, they probably don't even care if the ground is actually played on by Warndon Pork Butchers FC, they just have to have a rather annoying patch of grass on their retail development, ask yourself why the football club have lost a further 2 acres from the original plan, 2 acres which would have been used for generating non football revenue for the club, and are now generating revenue for St. Modwen!!
What would be my solution? Well if we're not getting overage on the site, then how is the development enabling us? And how does 14.5 acres enable us anymore than 12.5 acres? So if we have to have this developer providing assistance, let them give us half the site so it can be developed for non-footballing revenue and include something like a community facility, a floodlit 5-a-side area. This is being promoted as a community stadium, when it actually provides nothing for the commnity outside of those who want to watch football!!!
So why have enabing development at all? We could develop a site up there with total support of the council, and the community, with a small stadium and multiple sports facilities, without enabling retail parks - no hassle with getting planning permission, its guaranteed if its within the local plan framework!
Or why not ground share at an existing facility, a facility within 2 miles which will soon be one of the finest multi-sport facilities in the country??
Or why not develop a revenue generating programme for SGL whereby the club could generate £200,000 per annum from non football facilities (similar to what they do at Wimbledon, although there they generate more than £300,000), which would allow us to operate at very little loss, possibly at profit, revalue the ground, and show a realistic asset value to secure borrowings, keep borrowings stable, and not be concerned about a debt which is both manageable and potentially repayable.
When the clubs own published figures, and members of the project team tell you there will be a shortfall on phase one, you have to question whether it is right for supporters of a football club to support the building of 4 car showrooms a pub, a restaurant, a hotel and 5 office units, unless the developer can truly safeguard the clubs future, which to date they've shown they can't!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2008 7:49:48 GMT
Remember as well that the two sided ground scenario is the BEST we can expect. That will happen if all goes to plan. House moves never go to plan let alone something as complex as this, and certainly not in todays chaotic market. The reality is that if this move does go ahead we'll end up with something far less ambitious than even Wayne's artist's impression. A much smaller stand maybe with an uncovered concrete area behind one goal. Perhaps even something akin to Langland's Stadium.
That will be this board's legacy to our club. A stadium like Burton Albion's? Another Boddy pipe dream. If this board had shown any aptitude for generating income in the past then maybe starting small and building up slowly would be an option. However they've been totally inept creating second stream income. Why would this change after the move? We'd be stuck in a sub-standard "stadium" forever. There will be no space to expand and no money to do it anyway. Pathetic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2008 7:56:25 GMT
I was led to believe (by members of the Board) that the reasoning behind the JV with St. Modwen was that it enabled the ground to be built as a full four sided structure without the need for phasing. Thats what they brought to the table. Slowly but surely St. Modwen have eaten away at the plot and also the commitment to the football ground. When I asked the question "is there anything to stop St. Modwen just building one side if thats all the football club can afford?" I was told that if thats what was affordable, then thats what it would be. So I am now under the impression that the two sided ground is in fact the best we can hope for, and is dependent on a generous, no strings, cash donation from St. Modwen!! Please, I'd welcome anyone showing me that my (and many others) calculations are wrong!!
|
|
|
|
Post by richwidd on Oct 23, 2008 8:47:15 GMT
Boddy has stated that "we hope to be at Nunnery Way for the 2010/2011 season" We can probably add at least a couple of seasons on to this. (Bearing in mind his track record on dates and times - "The website will be up and running in 24 hours" "There will be an AGM in September" "There will be an AGM in October" etc)
How much more money is this incompetent Board of Directors going to lose between now and the move to the new Ground? If it is two seasons you can take off another £180,000 (+ the added interest after 2009, three seasons £275,000 (+++) THe higher the debt increases, the smaller the Ground would be and it may very well be a one sided Ground, or a two sided Ground with no capital, and a debt to St Modwen.
They have given up running a business at SGL, yet we will be here for at least TWO seasons. Perhaps Camperman can answer!! What are you going to do to generate money camperman?
|
|
wh
Youth Teamer
Posts: 44
|
Post by wh on Oct 23, 2008 10:37:54 GMT
I dont think the board has any plans to stay at SGL for anything like 2 seasons. I think you will find they will be out ASAP and at best we will share with A N Other for 3 or 4 seasons before we discover there isnt enough for the modest of stadiums and then what.
I firmly believe they will bail out of SGL ASAP that way the bank are happy and the very real threat of admin is gone.
What with the bank refusing to extend the overdraft and no more idiots around to put money in then this is the only option available to Gepetto and Pinocchio.
After all what reason have they to stay at SGL? they are not using it for anything other than playing football.
|
|
|
|
Post by richwidd on Oct 23, 2008 11:20:36 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. A tad optimistic Wayne. What does it look like with three open sides? I note there are four vehicles parked in front of the main stand with plenty of spaces along side. Is one of them a campervan? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2008 11:47:21 GMT
Before everyone gets too excited about the idea that planning permission is all that is needed, and that promise of jobs will secure planning permission, we've seen it all before
Wednesday, 11 December, 2002, 09:36 GMT
City to get new football stadium
Worcester City football club has been granted permission to build a new ground on the outskirts of the city.
Councillors voted 23 to six in favour of the plans for a new 7,000-seater stadium at the city's Spetchley Road.
However the funding for the new ground needed the support of a commercial development and a B&Q superstore will form part of the complex.
Club director Dave Boddy says the move is an historic moment in the club's history.
'Hard work'
He told BBC Radio Hereford and Worcester: "It's a great day for Worcester City Football Club.
"It means that we've got a green light to drive the thing forward and had it gone wrong this evening, I think we'd have been scratching our heads and back to the drawing board really.
"The message to every Worcester City supporter now is this is where the hard work begins, but we're going to take the thing forward."
However, not everyone supports the plans.
Residents say the development of a B&Q superstore at the site will lead to too much congestion in a residential area.
'Determined opposition'
Spokesman Keith Burton says the council's decision is a setback.
"The battle is not lost until the battle is over," he said.
"We are quite determined in our opposition to the B&Q.
"I am sure that 10,000 people of Worcester who voted in favour for a football stadium, did not actually vote for a B&Q."
24/10/01 - Stadium application: More than 250 jobs will be on offer
From the archive, first published Wednesday 3rd Apr 2002.
MORE than 250 jobs would be created by a massive football stadium development if giant DIY firm B&Q is given the green light by councillors.
The superstore chain is the financial backer driving Worcester City FC's bid for a spectacular new ground at Nunnery Way.
And the team behind the development in Worcester feel football fans, the economy and trade in the community will all benefit from the stadium and DIY superstore.
"A new B&Q Warehouse will create between 200 and 250 jobs for local people," said Steven Groves, B&Q development manager.
"We would welcome the chance to bring this facility to Worcester and finance the blue and whites' dream of a new stadium."
A Worcester City official also confirmed another 25 full-time and part-time jobs would be generated by the stadium itself. These include office work, ground work and positions in bar and banqueting developments.
Around 20 per cent of jobs would be management or trade professional positions. These include experts such as interior designers, plumbers, electricians and horticulturists to provide advice and guidance in the store.
The major difference between the two plans is the deal to WCFC. The B&Q plan committed to provide a 7,000 capacity stadium in one phase and a business plan which showed a healthy cash balance of over £1million, the St. Modwen plan is to provide a 3,200 capacity phase one stadium with two sides only, and no cash in the bank.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2008 12:02:21 GMT
More deja vu!
22/10/01 - Stadium application: This bid will be our last, say club bosses
From the archive, first published Wednesday 31st Jul 2002.
OFFICIALS at Worcester City Football Club say their latest bid for a state-of-the-art soccer stadium will be their last.
The commercial development backed by DIY superstore B&Q would see a move from crumbling St George's Lane to a revolutionary ground at Nunnery Wood with an initial 7,000 capacity.
A project team for the club put the final touches to the promotional package to hand in to Worcester city councillors, which will be discussed at an informal planning presentation on Thursday, November 1.
If the team is not successful, WCFC will have to stay at St George's Lane where it will prove difficult to achieve the club dream of Football League status.
And the Nunnery Way site could be an area developed for industrial warehouses.
The team, headed by local solicitor David Hallmark, aims to seek support in principle for the scheme, in order to give project leaders the confidence to thoroughly investigate the potential of the Nunnery Way area.
Our aim at the meeting is not for councillors to give planning permission, but to endorse and encourage our bid for development. We want to form an initial base of confidence so we can then promote and begin the evolution process of our proposal, said Mr Hallmark.
Recognising this fact in principle is the first step in a long and hard battle for the club, which has fought for the site at Nunnery Way.
The project for the additional finance has always been the club's sticking point. The club needs to find an approved developer on the site, just off the M5, not only to help pay for costs totalling at least £7m, but to also meet council requirements.
A leisure complex, offices, a car dealership, tennis centre, cattle market, pub, houses and a cinema have all been failed suggestions in the past.
But each bid did not have enough funds to meet the potential cost of the stadium and the necessary road links, landscaping and site levelling involved.
Now the club, approaching its centenary celebrations next year, is hoping for an anniversary present to begin the groundwork for an eventual 10,000-seater stadium.
The Dr Martens Premier team now hopes the new plans will establish a ground in its own right while complimenting the county's first class cricket and rugby facilities.
The club and fans will know if the latest plans are accepted on Friday, November 2.
|
|
|
|
Post by wakefield on Oct 23, 2008 14:48:56 GMT
Oh dear.......
|
|
|
|
Post by creaner on Oct 23, 2008 16:08:45 GMT
From the SGL side, the other piece of this two sided puzzle.
Planning Committee Agenda=Thursday, 21st February, 2008.
APPLICATION P07M0711:
WORCESTER CITY FOOTBALL
GROUND, ST. GEORGE’S LANE
NORTH
Demolition of existing structures and
erection of 98 dwellings. (Bellway application)
This was an application for
development on the Worcester City
Football Club ground.
The scheme provided for four storey
development on the majority of the
site, but predominantly on the canal
frontage, which the Committee
considered to be excessive at this
point as this was the most prominent
frontage.
The Committee requested that the
Developer be invited to attend the
next meeting to make a presentation
on the proposed development.
The Committee recommend that
this application in its current form
is refused on the grounds of:-
1. The height of the proposed
buildings is excessive, and does
not respect the surrounding
street scene, particularly on the
Canal frontage where it should be
reduced to a maximum of three
storeys, as is the proposal on the
street elevation;
2. the development is too
high a density for this site;
3. the Committee is
concerned that the proposed
access road is unsatisfactory, on
highway safety grounds; and
4. the design detailing on the
canalside elevation is
unsatisfactory.
So 98 dwellings is too dense? Less houses=less value surely?
Access road not up to scratch? More infrastructure=more cost?
|
|
|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on Oct 23, 2008 22:15:09 GMT
So 98 dwellings is too dense? Less houses=less value surely? wrote Creaner.
Too true. I understand that the minimalist two sided proposed phase 1 build is totally dependant on the £ 7.36m from Carey's, which is totally dependant on the planning for 98 dwellings being approved.
If it's not approved, then Carey's can re-negotiate the SGL price. Every dwelling less than 98 means an already spartan and bleak shed-like design will get even smaller.
Jeremy's archive reports of a " Burton like " new stadium are illuminating, compared to the drab design on offer at present. I remember reading that the new stadium would be the "centrepiece" of the Nunnery Way development. Five acres surrounded by shedding tucked away in a 20 acre plot is not my idea of a " centrepiece ".
The Board, rather than lauding themselves for this design, ought to be apologising for almost running the Club into the Ground, and into a position where something as basic as this is seen as an achievement. Inept does not do them all justice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony is not to despondent now. on Oct 24, 2008 8:03:18 GMT
I thought I heard Boddy state that the two sided monstrosity, sorry, stadium, would be built on the back of borrowing from the developers against the future income from overage.
Even more debt!!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2008 8:15:30 GMT
But the debt was the reason to move in the first place! Why are we sacrificing SGL for a half-arsed location only to be worse off than when we started? Can someone explain that to me in simple terms please?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2008 8:56:25 GMT
Because we have no choice. We are locked into two contracts with bigger players than ourselves, locked into people we can't afford to sue!! Locked into Careys for 5 years, locked into St Modwen for 10 years.
These two players call all the shots, the Board of WCFC are totally impotent in this matter.
It does serve one useful purpose though, the dangling carrot of the ground move can be used to negotiate with the bank, after all, they wouldn't like to be seen as the people who killed WCFC, and with the chance of the ground move still in place, they know their "investment" in WCFC can still be repayed through sale of the asset. It means we can possibly extend the overdraft to keep us in business for the short term future. The flip side of this is obviously, when we do move, the debt will be bigger. I can only assume that if we do move to Nunnery Way in 2 years time, an additional £200k debt will be factored in. How this leaves us with, to quote the project manager "No debt but no money in the bank" I do not know!!
The original rationale for moving, via B&Q, was a debt free four sided 10,000 capacity stadium on land covenanted for 99 years, and a healthy 7 figure sum in the bank. Now it doesn't look so rosey.
I actually havent a great problem with the idea of the club in debt, after all, few on this board aren't in debt, and most of us with debt have plenty of equity to cover it, and cashflow to service it. Thats the problem i really see, the ground move leaves us with the same level of liquidity as before, i.e. none whatsoever. Which is why the stadium development for phases 2 and 3 are also out of our hands, they are reliant on St. Modwen overage giving us a percentage of the profit on the site.
I too was shocked to be told that St. Modwen would make up the shortfall - as someone stood next to me said "are they a charity??"
|
|
|
|
Post by StopfordianWCFC on Oct 24, 2008 9:31:44 GMT
No they are not a charity but I guess that have been told by the City Council that they will face a planning condition / S106 legal agreement that means that all the enabling development cannot take place without the Stadium being built and brought into operation.
City must therefore have some leverage over St Modwens by the fact that the allocation of Nunnery Way is implicitly tied up with football.... (at least in the short term - I suspect that if the club went bust, the land would eventually be used for development in future LDF's).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2008 9:35:14 GMT
Agreed I think they have about 100 x 80 yards of leverage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2008 8:26:20 GMT
Let's face it, this ground will never be built. The figures don't add up. The whole plan is unworkable. Either it's just a pipe dream that a bunch of deluded directors are desperately clinging to, or it's a smoke screen to enable various people to wind the club up and move into bigger homes.
|
|
|
|
Post by suv on Oct 25, 2008 16:35:35 GMT
|
|
