|
|
Post by dave on Jul 16, 2007 11:53:18 GMT
Story in todays Worcester News... www.thisiswcfc.co.uk/display.var.1545641.0.city_closing_on_deal_for_nunnery_way_stadium.phpI despair! Yet again the whole ground move seems to hinge on an enabling development, despite the fact that the Government Inspector threw this proposal out of the window 3 years ago. Are we really any further forward I have to wonder? Why would an enabling development now be allowed, when one was rejected previously. All the residents in the Nunnery Way area will strongly oppose this once again, and the whole thing would appear doomed to failure. Insolvency anyone? |
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Jul 16, 2007 12:11:07 GMT
The article does go on to quote Dave Boddy as saying that they know what they can and cannot do by way of an enabling development. So, as long as they kep within the peramiters all should be ok shouldn't it  I just hope that mention of something around September doesn't go the same way as when DB said around Febuary time that he expected to be able make an to announcement in a couple of months! (i.e.- April) |
|
|
|
Post by Croc on Jul 16, 2007 14:06:40 GMT
You know full well that sniffing glue is dangerous... |
|
|
|
Post by StopfordianWCFC on Jul 16, 2007 18:34:39 GMT
Story in todays Worcester News... www.thisiswcfc.co.uk/display.var.1545641.0.city_closing_on_deal_for_nunnery_way_stadium.phpI despair! Yet again the whole ground move seems to hinge on an enabling development, despite the fact that the Government Inspector threw this proposal out of the window 3 years ago. Are we really any further forward I have to wonder? Why would an enabling development now be allowed, when one was rejected previously. All the residents in the Nunnery Way area will strongly oppose this once again, and the whole thing would appear doomed to failure. Insolvency anyone? Whats local opposition got to do with it. If that were a factor nothing would ever get built! It all depends on what land uses will 'enable' our move, I don't see St Modwens shelling out for non-developable land. |
|
|
|
Post by Oogly Boogly on Jul 16, 2007 20:03:45 GMT
Probably the most negative post on here for some time. For gods sake 'Dave' don't you think the Directors of the club know what they're doing? We are just going into a new season, full of hope, there's news on the ground move, and all you can do is knock it?
And wheres that Munslow? what do you think of this negativity?
Lets get behind the efforts of the tireless directors of the club, give them our support and hope that the new ground really is going to be there for us in August 2009.
|
|
|
|
Post by Croc on Jul 17, 2007 9:53:11 GMT
tbh OB - free-speech is a mandate of any one of us on here - and I'll defend vehemently anyone's right to it - otherwise you're no better than a certain Assistant Manager we once had...
Anyway - you forget the source of the perceived negativity - we were supposed to be in the new stadium for our Centenary Year.
This is more of a saga than Rovers trying to get into Tallaght, or the Wembley fiasco...
|
|
|
|
Post by Oogly Boogly on Jul 17, 2007 10:25:56 GMT
That may be true Berthold, but having being seriously flambed for supposedly being negative by Munslow when questioning whether a Certificate in Football Management was really relevent (even though I was not being in anyway negative towards the football club or Andy Preece) it just seems odd that someone can post about the ground move and even Munslow finds an attack on the Directors not to be negative. I think if I'd posted that, people like Munslow would have been on the offensive straight away.
Anyway, so much of the ground move is out of our hands, and such a headache to the Directors that I'm surprised that some of them havent just walked away. The fact that the havent and are still working on it is a major positive.
I'll defend anyones right to free speech and open debate. I just get annoyed by people like Munslow who really just want to launch personal attacks on certain peoples posting often without even reading the content.
|
|
|
|
Post by DrAgony on Jul 17, 2007 10:57:46 GMT
tbh OB - free-speech is a mandate of any one of us on here - and I'll defend vehemently anyone's right to it - otherwise you're no better than a certain assistant Manager we once had... Anyway - you forget the source of the perceived negativity - we were supposed to be in the new stadium for our Centenary Year. This is more of a saga than Rovers trying to get into Tallaght, or the Wembley fiasco... So, Mr Brecht, your position is that you'll defend free speech - but not if that right is asserted by an assistant manager of the club who defends the players against ridiculous negativity. Mr O. Boogly, in my opinion, is right in this instance. The original post in this thread was negative against part-time directors who are still in the middle of the process of trying to save the club. I, for one, am grateful for their efforts - the success of which we cannot yet judge. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2007 11:18:27 GMT
Maybe Mr Munslow has upset you O. Boogly - but I assure you he's a decent man and without malice, I'm sure he would never have intended a slight. He's also 100% WCFC which is good enough for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by adycrean on Jul 17, 2007 14:44:26 GMT
On the ground issue, I'm a tad confused by Dave Boddy's comment that "there's always been a financial shortfall in terms of the value of St George's Lane against the cost of building the new stadium at Nunnery Way"
I was always under the impression that a new stadium venture would allow us to clear our debts AND fund the new ground - am I wrong ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Croc on Jul 17, 2007 15:01:12 GMT
tbh OB - free-speech is a mandate of any one of us on here - and I'll defend vehemently anyone's right to it - otherwise you're no better than a certain assistant Manager we once had... Anyway - you forget the source of the perceived negativity - we were supposed to be in the new stadium for our Centenary Year. This is more of a saga than Rovers trying to get into Tallaght, or the Wembley fiasco... So, Mr Brecht, your position is that you'll defend free speech - but not if that right is asserted by an assistant manager of the club who defends the players against ridiculous negativity. Mr O. Boogly, in my opinion, is right in this instance. The original post in this thread was negative against part-time directors who are still in the middle of the process of trying to save the club. I, for one, am grateful for their efforts - the success of which we cannot yet judge. Football after the Revolution will be much simpler |
|
|
|
Post by B*ue dragonstander on Jul 17, 2007 15:02:04 GMT
It is the most positive announcement yet and to be very much welcomed.
|
|
|
|
Post by suv on Jul 17, 2007 18:44:37 GMT
On the subject of Nunnery Way's Residents opposing the New Ground, I spent some time with Michael Foster MP at Westminster yesterday (16/07/07). He seemed to think that once the finances were sorted out, then the council would have little objections as the "propossed site" is in the local plan as "land for a football staduim" or similar type words?
I'm sure that Dave Boddy also used a similiar phrase at the recent fans forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oogly Boogly on Jul 17, 2007 20:57:38 GMT
Thats true suv however the residents are smart, they don't object to the football stadium as they'll lose that one. They object to the enabling development. I think there is scope for enabling development of a sporting nature within a single building on the site. Been a few years since I read the Local Plan.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim Munslow on Jul 18, 2007 9:00:49 GMT
Thank you Ealing for coming to my defence; it does seem I might have upset Mr OB, given that he mentioned my name four times (also Jeremy Pitt too - not the same person, but that's another story). With reference to OB's comment that "..really just want to launch personal attacks on certain peoples posting often without even reading the content" I can assure him I did read his post before replying and I don't generally jump to conclusions without the facts. As I have been outside gardening in the fresh air the last two days I haven't had time to jump on any negativity on this subject. I am sure that conference and banqueting facilities would be acceptable as an enabling development; that seemed to be what Dave Boddy was saying at the forum if I heard him correctly.
|
|
wh
Youth Teamer
Posts: 44
|
Post by wh on Jul 18, 2007 9:39:12 GMT
The piece by St.Modwen in the WN talked of a car show room and other facilities on the site. hence the "All enquiries to 0121..." on the boarding on the nunnery way site. If I read the article correctly.
This is my view based on what I have read and not based on any inside info, I can confirm though that the club are very pleased with the way things are going (all be it a little slower than they originally wanted) and Dave Boddy and the rest of the board have been working flat out now for a considerable amount of time on this project.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oogly Boogly on Jul 18, 2007 10:20:05 GMT
Well if you had read my post you'd have seen no negativity shown towards Andy Preece or WCFC, I don't like negativity towards the club either, but there again you didnt read it, you probably scanned over it and jumped to assumptions, like you did with the item on the website about Preecey's course - no it wasn't a 4 year course, but you're not one for detail are you? So twice there you jumped to conclusions without facts, and thinking I'm some other idiotic poster who thankfully is no longer here is yet another conclusion you jumped to without the facts. Seems you actually make a habit of it.
And unlike you I try not to jump to conclusions without facts although sometimes it does happen, so for your benefit, I took the trouble to look at the Local Plan and it reads 'Ancillary developments of a non retail sports/leisure nature would be acceptable within the design framework of a single stadium building.'
So if the club want to incorporate a leisure facility within the stadium itself, then this shouldn't be a problem, if they want to build a stadium next to a superstore then forget it. I am confident the club know exactly what they can and can't do. The council planning dept do offer advice on these matters as to what is and isn't acceptable.
You havent upset me Munslow, I don't get upset by fools.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim Munslow on Aug 14, 2007 10:08:39 GMT
Visiting Hinckley United last night reminded me of how badly we need a new ground like theirs. A neat, unpretentious ground, well built, nice bar, clean facilities, friendly staff, a pleasure to visit in fact. Just what we need.
And yet??? Where was the atmosphere? Just acres of bare, cold, uninviting concrete.
Where were the weed-choked wooden sleeper terraces, where were the rusting corrugated iron toilets, broken down fences, rotting wooden tea-huts, smoke filled social club and everything that goes to make non-league footie so special.
I am in two minds about this new ground lark.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2007 11:01:11 GMT
The answer's simple Tim. We build a new ground using rusty corrugated iron, old sleepers and crumbly bricks. That way it's "retro" and "modern" but us oldies feel at home. Of course parts of the ground will already be falling down and cordoned of, but so what?
|
|
|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on Aug 14, 2007 11:22:23 GMT
Try " office blocks " as the enabling development. Simply look over the road to where the field is.
|
|
|
|
Post by B*ue dragonstander on Aug 14, 2007 12:59:22 GMT
Visiting Hinckley United last night reminded me of how badly we need a new ground like theirs. A neat, unpretentious ground, well built, nice bar, clean facilities, friendly staff, a pleasure to visit in fact. Just what we need. Were they still doing the pork & stuffing rolls? |
|
|
|
Post by jeremypitt on Aug 14, 2007 15:50:42 GMT
Try " office blocks " as the enabling development. Simply look over the road to where the field is. Forget it, its very clear in the Local Plan what can be considered as enabling development, it must be sport/leisure related, its the wrong side of the road!!!. So how do Hinckley manage to do it without enabling development, yet for City this seems impossible? I think its a fine ground they've put together there, built for purpose with room for expansion if or when its needed. |
|
camper
Reserve Teamer
Posts: 87
|
Post by camper on Sept 16, 2007 17:48:16 GMT
I have to resurrect this old topic because being a computor dinosaur I could not work out how to post a new topic. I am a director of the club Tony Partridge and I don't particularly want to use the word that means the same as soon that has been banded about for some time . I think that now would be a good time to offer you the supporters of the club to draw on all your knowledge and experience of football grounds at all levels to offer up suggestions that from your experience you would like to see incorporated into the new ground. I must make this perfectly clear that I and no one else for that matter can make any promises of what the ground will incorporate but it would help the club to have your views. The Board visit many grounds but most of their time is spent in the directors and hospitality areas and not around the ground in general. Feel free to post on here, drop lists into the office for me or email me at tonyp037@hotmail.com Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by Croc on Sept 16, 2007 21:27:53 GMT
Tony - have the club looked at the New Meadow at Shrewsbury at all?
It seems to be the model that most new developments are being based on.
Will drop you an email with some other observations in tomorrow
|
|
|
|
Post by blackpole on Sept 16, 2007 23:57:50 GMT
OB and Tim need to stop their pertsonal spat with each other, as the bottom line is they are both City thru'and thru' - and I know Tim is! OB, no doubt youare as well!
Here's the state of play to settle or your doubting minds .... the value of the ground in the books is only an "inventory" figure. The new ground Will happen, and the club will have zero debts. The land the ground will be built on, WILL be owned by the club, so all you people who are doubting the wisdom and work of the directors can now , please stop bickering like women over the garden fence. I for one have always wanted the board to speculate with the playing budget, but now I can see what they are aiming at .... I can't elucidate, but trust me, we ARE going the right way, and things are on the way up .... the badge does say "faithful", so have some !
|
|
|
|
Post by tim on Sept 17, 2007 10:29:19 GMT
OB and Tim need to stop their pertsonal spat with each other, as the bottom line is they are both City thru'and thru' - and I know Tim is! OB, no doubt youare as well! Tim Munslow needs to stop his personal spat with OB, I assume you mean? |
|
|
|
Post by Tim Munslow on Sept 17, 2007 12:22:47 GMT
What personal spat? All is forgiven & forgotten as far as I am concerned. I shall be at the game tonight, and I hope, for the sake of the club, OB will be (whoever he is). As you know I don't hide behind a nom-de-plume.
|
|
camper
Reserve Teamer
Posts: 87
|
Post by camper on Sept 17, 2007 14:15:36 GMT
Thanks Soupy, I have to say that I am really impressed with the response so far!!
|
|
|
|
Post by dave on Sept 17, 2007 14:19:25 GMT
I think that the most important thing that any new ground can offer is being built in time to prevent us going insolvent. Will this be included in the plans?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2007 14:43:34 GMT
Re ground details: Crawley has sizeable and clean toilets and a neat main stand. I just hope we can have something with a little more "character" rather than the usual "breeze block bunker". I like those "canvas" roof stands that look like a series of tents. (I think there's some at Lords.) They soften the concrete a little. However I realise that its about £££££.
I wish I could be more specific Mr Partridge, but I've not seen many grounds at our level as we play in that Northern league and it's too cold to watch football up there.
|
|
