|
|
Post by Croc on Jun 9, 2007 14:27:31 GMT
Just read on another forum that Scarborough Borough Council have turned down the clubs plans to sell the McCain and build a new stadium.
This means that Scarborough will now fold (due to their debts) and they have been advised to form a new club and apply to the Northern Counties East League.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim Munslow on Jun 10, 2007 10:16:07 GMT
Just shows how small clubs live on a knife edge; there but for the grace of God..........
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2007 9:04:27 GMT
My Scarboro pals are devastated, but insist they'll be back. It's heartbreaking - something all us "real" fans can relate to. Another pal of mine is from Leeds - they're all starting to think I'm carrying some kind of hex. The Seadog mates were looking forward to another trip to the Faithful City, oh well one day maybe.......
|
|
|
|
Post by B*ue dragonstander on Jun 12, 2007 12:37:01 GMT
Good of the Council that. Really helps build a community that sort of short sighted initiative. Thanks Tone Thanks Gord!
|
|
Patto
Youth Teamer
Posts: 5
|
Post by Patto on Jun 12, 2007 14:57:09 GMT
Boro today earned a reprieve from the courts, this means the winding up order has been suspended for eight days. This is due to an offer been made on the current ground, and Boro have also reached all the necessary criteria to lift the CVA and pay off creditors. If all goes well then in eight days the council will lift the covenant on the current ground allowing Scarborough FC to continue in the Unibond Premier!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Oogly Boogly on Jun 12, 2007 15:57:41 GMT
Good of the Council that. Really helps build a community that sort of short sighted initiative. Thanks Tone Thanks Gord! I don't know quite how Tony and Gordon get the blame for this one, it doesnt make sense for cash strapped local government to bail out privately owned companies who make a mess of their finances. Surely its down to the club and local businesses and the people themselves to make the club work. Maybe McCain themselves could do a bit more than just buying the naming rights to the stadium. It annoys me when Local Authorities are expected to rehouse failed sports clubs particularly football clubs as though they are an exception to normal council policies. That last post suggests that the club can be rescued for the time being through its own efforts which is the way it should be. |
|
|
|
Post by Tim Munslow on Jun 12, 2007 17:58:12 GMT
I would hate to be a fixture planner just at the moment; there's about seven leagues where no-one is quite certain who the participants will be in August!
|
|
|
|
Post by B*ue dragonstander on Jun 13, 2007 8:12:08 GMT
Its just that Tone confesses to being a real football nut and Gord is seen recently posing to try and convince everyone that he is just a normal bloke who loves sport. In reality the Government make absurd planning rules that measn that Cities like Worcester cant seem to get a decent soccer stadium and that Councils operate under a set of administrative burdens that make it difficult for them to reach a decision that might be obviously the right one.
Clearly we cannot expect public money to be thrown down the drain of mismanagement and it may be that the Club's proposal was simply unworkable. Sometimes there is a case for using public funds to support a community based actvity but I believe that the rules under which local authorities operate make it difficult to achieve this in practice. her ether eis a relocation proposal thwarted, on the face of it, by petty planning rules. Do people not know that only 5% of the country is built on? We are not short of land!
|
|
|
|
Post by StopfordianWCFC on Jun 13, 2007 8:29:16 GMT
Do people not know that only 5% of the country is built on? We are not short of land! Spoken like a true developer BDS! |
|
|
|
Post by Oogly Boogly on Jun 13, 2007 8:31:33 GMT
Blue Dragonstander I take your point, but firstly the planning rules have to apply to everyone and football stadiums and football clubs probably represent less than 0.00000000000000000000001% of the 5% of land that is built on. what may appear petty planning rules to one person may impact on thousands of other peoples lives in a very negative way, so they have to apply a balance, and for every Scarborough where the proposal is rejected there is a Coventry or a Burton or a Darlington or even a Worcester City which is accepted. Yes, Worcester City's proposals for the development of land at Nunnery Way has been endorsed fully by the councils, or course the final design needs planning approval, but the planning processes have so far worked in City's favour. From what I've read, and without any of the inside information that some people seem to get on here, there is nothing stopping the football club from selling up and moving to Nunnery Way from a planning perspective.
Community based activities? absolutely, every effort should be made to ensure community based activites get support, but a privately owned football club which bears the name of a particualr city is not considered as a community based activity any more than the rugby club or the cricket club, both of them have had many planning applications turned down. If Worcester City Tennis club applied for permission to build a sole purpose stadium at Nunnery Way then I doubt that they could claim this as being a community based scheme. I imagine that the Scarborough propsal was turned down for very valid reasons, and probably the same reasons which would have been applied to many other small businesses too. Of course if you are wealthy enough you can make sure that planning permission doesnt apply to you like Tesco do.
|
|
|
|
Post by colinlayland on Jun 13, 2007 8:44:53 GMT
You know what your talking about Oogly Boogly,agree with all of what you said.
|
|
|
|
Post by DazaB on Jun 13, 2007 9:14:19 GMT
despite being based in dallas
|
|
|
|
Post by Oogly Boogly on Jun 13, 2007 10:31:17 GMT
Close'ish I suppose, Silicon Valley via Waldorf Germany via Powick Hams. I've never been anywhere near Texas though with all that Yee Ha country and Western and Cowboy Hats and stuff although we did have a guy come over on training from Annaheim, is that Texas? and I couldn't understand much of what he said but he seemed a decent enough chap.
|
|
|
|
Post by LeedsWCFC on Jun 13, 2007 18:11:20 GMT
football stadiums and football clubs probably represent less than 0.00000000000000000000001% of the 5% of land that is built on. Presuming you are talking about England I make that 0.000000000651975 mm 2. I think we'll need a bigger stadium than that.  |
|
|
|
Post by Oogly Boogly on Jun 14, 2007 7:31:21 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by andy on Jun 14, 2007 8:38:29 GMT
It is more noughts out than there are in 00gly B00gly! But, hey, who's going to quibble over about ten orders of magnitude.
A point is that there is uneven treatment of Clubs by Councils across the land, on planning and on recurrent financing. Tameside have consistently put 60K a year into non-league football as a year-on-year grant, which this year will go to just one Club. That is an amount worth about one third of our gate receipts. It would be like Worcester City Council paying our interest payments for us.
|
|
|
|
Post by B*ue dragonstander on Jun 14, 2007 9:04:54 GMT
It is more noughts out than there are in 00gly B00gly! But, hey, who's going to quibble over about ten orders of magnitude. A point is that there is uneven treatment of Clubs by Councils across the land, on planning and on recurrent financing. Tameside have consistently put 60K a year into non-league football as a year-on-year grant, which this year will go to just one Club. That is an amount worth about one third of our gate receipts. It would be like Worcester City Council paying our interest payments for us. Spot on Andy. There is a point beyond which rules produce more inconsistency not less. As for OB's point that local professional sports clubs not being a community based activity I can't disagree more. What is their raison d'etre? If there was no Telford United the local community would form AFC Telford and they did. Football clubs and the like provide a focal point for local pride. Frankly Government pays lip service to sport. Where are the publicly provided playing fields? School sports fields? Closed or sold. You cant play cricket in a health and fitness club gym. After all this we hope to win a bagful of Olympic medals? What is all that about? Not sport. It is about a masive ego trip and junket for politicians and they are stealing our money to provide it when the economics should mean that it is self financing. How about £20 Billion as the final cost? Anyone want a £1 on it? |
|
|
|
Post by Oogly Boogly on Jun 14, 2007 9:46:58 GMT
It is more noughts out than there are in 00gly B00gly! But, hey, who's going to quibble over about ten orders of magnitude. A point is that there is uneven treatment of Clubs by Councils across the land, on planning and on recurrent financing. Tameside have consistently put 60K a year into non-league football as a year-on-year grant, which this year will go to just one Club. That is an amount worth about one third of our gate receipts. It would be like Worcester City Council paying our interest payments for us. That seems a very fait point Andy and it would be far fairer for Councils to not be allowed to put public money into private companies in this way. I don't know what that Tameside situation is all about, but I 'm sure the clubs not getting money will consider it unfair too. When you say uneven treatment of clubs by councils, do you mean football clubs? or sports clubs? or any form of "club" which is privately owned and funded. I'm think here of clubs such as model steam railway clubs who can't get planning permission for their tracks on their own land, or cricket clubs unable to get planning permission for walls arouind their ground for security. It happens and I'm sure that Layland who comes on here (must be one of the Layland councillors) will explain how there are very well laid out rules for how planning permission can be given or not. |
|
|
|
Post by Oogly Boogly on Jun 14, 2007 12:48:44 GMT
It is more noughts out than there are in 00gly B00gly! But, hey, who's going to quibble over about ten orders of magnitude. A point is that there is uneven treatment of Clubs by Councils across the land, on planning and on recurrent financing. Tameside have consistently put 60K a year into non-league football as a year-on-year grant, which this year will go to just one Club. That is an amount worth about one third of our gate receipts. It would be like Worcester City Council paying our interest payments for us. Spot on Andy. There is a point beyond which rules produce more inconsistency not less. As for OB's point that local professional sports clubs not being a community based activity I can't disagree more. What is their raison d'etre? If there was no Telford United the local community would form AFC Telford and they did. Football clubs and the like provide a focal point for local pride. Frankly Government pays lip service to sport. Where are the publicly provided playing fields? School sports fields? Closed or sold. You cant play cricket in a health and fitness club gym. After all this we hope to win a bagful of Olympic medals? What is all that about? Not sport. It is about a masive ego trip and junket for politicians and they are stealing our money to provide it when the economics should mean that it is self financing. How about £20 Billion as the final cost? Anyone want a £1 on it? Ah but I didnt say ALL professional sports clubs and there are some who that work very hard to make sure they do give a lot back to the community in which they work. However they don't all do it and those that say they do don't do it very well. Put it like this. How much community involvement has there been with the new stadium so far, and has that community involvement had an impact on the design and layout of the stadium? Such as maybe a community astroturf? training pitches for local schools? I don't konw the answer to that as I have no involvement, but I was interested in Ketterings Chairmans statement about involving the community. I've read people like Brooksider and Chris Green banging on about this on the old board and maybe they have a point. As someone who probably spends more time at Sixways, not necessarily watching rugby - the contrast is massive and has been for many years. They seem to want to get as many people of all ages up to the club involved in both rugby and non-rugby things. Even before Cecils involvement, the rugby club hosted all schools rugby events and other social functions. You ask what is their raison d'etre? Well that depends on their constitution and mission statement surely. Telford was Andy Shaws play thing and was certainly not a community club, until Miras Contracts went pear-shaped and then the community saw what it was going to lose, even then businesses hardly rallied round, leaving it to supporters to raise funds to try and keep the club alive. Which was a shame because businessmen would have let the club die and reform (as it did) and saved the supporters £30k of their money. Sale of school playing fields? a hideous process which Thatcher and her government have to take blame for. If they'd allowed Councils to use the money from the sale of council house stock to build new social housing then maybe this wouldn't have happened. Unfortunately this was prime building land and the councils needed the money for community services. Its a process that can't be undone. The government of all colours pays lip service to sport, you are right, but sport has to get its own house in order to attract government support, and football is just one many sports which cannot get its house in order but thats another discussion altogether, the problem being how can government justify putting money into one of the most wealthy sports in the country, I'm sure people would be horrified if our government funded motorsports or tennis as well. And are we talking local government or central government? Local Government is so strapped for cash that sport is usually well down the pecking order for funding. And Central Government has a war to fight and a National Health Service to run badly. The olympics? what have they got to do with sport these days? not a lot unfortunately, professional clothes-horse athletes looking for big money sponsors mainly. Our government should have done the research which show that in modern times no country has made a profit from hosting the olympics. |
|
|
|
Post by StopfordianWCFC on Jun 14, 2007 13:14:26 GMT
I've read people like Brooksider and Chris Green banging on about this on the old board. ? ;D ? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2007 13:20:20 GMT
Yes I raised an eyebrow as well!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Oogly Boogly on Jun 14, 2007 13:43:07 GMT
Yes but the likes of Brooksider and co banged on about a lot of crap, so maybe the point isnt valid.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2007 14:21:37 GMT
No that's not why I raised an eyebrow, but maybe I'm wrong?
|
|
|
|
Post by andy on Jun 14, 2007 15:09:30 GMT
Surely you would only have consultation about the community aspects of a stadium once a decision had been taken that there was going to be a stadium at all.
Supporters might want to have a say on location, but that may well be out of their hands. ie "we would prefer an in-town stadium so we could walk to it" would almost be certainly be over-ridden by exorbitant cost of land. Worse, the Club would be seen to be going against Supporters' express wishes if, after consultation, it couldnt afford to go down that route.
Once land is acquired and a decision taken to actually move (not yet taken), then there will no doubt be ample time to hold consultation.
Would it be helpful to open debate among shareholders on a new stadium versus sharing at Sixways? I would rather that decision were taken on a business basis behind closed doors, and presume that it has been/will be based on good advice.
One can be absolutely sure that there would be no consensus among supporters. After all, JP (where has he gone?) and I, and others could n't even reach agreement in a conceptual discussion about the advantage (or otherwise) of freehold land. What hope agreement on the colour of the toilet rolls? Not to say that such a process isnt important as undoubted benefits will arise. But, in my view, better to focus that consultation onto a single realistic option. A realistic option that has its foundation securely embedded in business sense and long-term sustainability. Which we are not yet privy to. If indeed any such decision has yet been taken.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oogly Boogly on Jun 14, 2007 15:35:50 GMT
Andy, your post sums up why councils would be right not to fund clubs who can't show they are part of the community. Community means far more than supporters and you talk only of supporter consultation. Community includes local businesses, local sporting clubs, local organisations such as parish councils, residents groups. I was thinking more in line with whether the community of Worcester would like to include things like all weather training facilities at a site with 5 community pitches, or whether a community physiotherapy centre, or sports injury centre could be included within a plan for people who really don't give a stuff about Worcester City Football Club, but would consider these facilities of benefit. These are often the kinds of facilities that can attract local grants as they serve the community as a whole. If you think I'm talking about the football supporting community of Worcester, then maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree here.
You've always appeared to be someone in the know Andy, unless there's another Andy but I'm assuming you are Andy B. so its slightly worrying to read that a decision hasn't yet been taken at all to move. So all that "we'll be folding in less than two years" was a load of old guff then ?
You are right that decisions should be taken on a solely commercial business basis, but no club or business can have it both ways, if it is a commercial decision, then there is no place for government to provide funding. I remember Tim who ran the website saying years back that the club can't go cap in hand to the council expecting handouts as a profit making limited company.
|
|
|
|
Post by colinlayland on Jun 14, 2007 16:00:59 GMT
No that's not why I raised an eyebrow, but maybe I'm wrong? Your not thinking Oogly Boogly is some other person in disguise who had a name that was some thing between a river and a stream  . |
|
|
|
Post by Oogly Boogly on Jun 14, 2007 16:45:17 GMT
No he isn't Mr Layland, although I did post as someone else on Brooksiders forum.
And I do stand on the Brookside at the Lane, but thats as far as that one goes, so forget it.
|
|
|
|
Post by andy on Jun 14, 2007 16:45:36 GMT
Yes, I am openly Andy Bullock, as I think most people know.
In order to be able to move, I presume we have to sell SGL. I know Millers were involved 2.5 years back, but as far as I know, the ground hasnt been sold.
Has a decision been taken yet on where we are moving to? If so, I've not heard about it. All I've heard is that St. Mowdens have bought some land and that there were some discussions ongoing with the Football Club.
I can only read between the lines and assume that at least two major business have been spoken to in relation to a future site. B&Q and St. Mowldens. I dont know if the ground will be leased or freehold. If its lease, then can a tenant secure grant investment into an asset it doesnt own? Doubt it. If its freehold, then what amount of land is involved? I havent a clue. Maybe it is just big enough for a football stadium and parking. If Sixways is to be the park-and-ride for Worcester North, is Nunnery Way to be the park and ride for Worcester South. Havent a clue. Whose decision would that be - probably the Council, I guess.
Is there profit in 5 community pitches, or a sports physiotherapy centre? If so, why hasnt someone done it already? Or are part-time directors of a part-time non-league Club expected to manage the asset on behalf of the Council? Would they be a drain on the financial resources of WCFC?
I feel you are being somewhat pernicious in your reply. I said should be every opportunity for consultation based on a single realistic option based on a commercial basis, a point on which you appear to agree. If you know what that option is, then you're certainly more privy to inside information than I ever am.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oogly Boogly on Jun 14, 2007 17:16:53 GMT
Andy, I don't know the answers, all I am saying is that "community" lies outside of regular footy fans, certainly in the eyes of any council and councillors, but Hinckley have a number of pitches at there new site, and Kidderminster are one of many teams to provide a sports injury clinic at their ground. If there is no profit in community sports pitches then that answers Blue Dragons question as to why there are no publically provided playing fields. The rest? I havent a clue, but I don't take with seeing government take the rap for failing to support football clubs who can't help themselves, regardless of the colour of the government and I'm no supporter of Blair or Brown, UNLESS the club can show that it can provide benefit to all sections of the community, not just its own kind i.e. football supporters. This is the fault of the FA and their disinterest in smaller clubs, and the clubs themselves also for over stretching themselves. I do agree entirely that the club should consider going forward on a purely commercial basis, and as such should expect no favour from the authorities over and above the planning consent that any other business would expect. I'm sure they don't. On the subject of securing finance against a leasehold, well Andy Shaw did exactly that with the Bucks Head, and I have a mortgage raised against the leasehold of my house, so I imagine the answer is yes. I think it depends on the term left of the lease but I'm just guessing. What does pernicious mean? What are St Modwens plans for Nunnery Way? I hope that the St. Modwen purchase doesn't mean the move there is scuppered now, although I would prefer Tolladine Yards for a football ground myself. I suspect we will at St Georges Lane for many years to come, so I'll be quite happy with that  |
|
|
|
Post by darrellbutler on Jun 14, 2007 18:25:23 GMT
No that's not why I raised an eyebrow, but maybe I'm wrong? Your not thinking Oogly Boogly is some other person in disguise who had a name that was some thing between a river and a stream . It wasn't a lager or a beer either, what could it be?  |
|
.