|
Post by Noboddy aka Lord Ealing on Jun 18, 2017 11:21:44 GMT
All true, but they don't want to save the club. Keeping it alive would enable records to be examined and questions asked.
|
|
|
Post by downthelane on Jun 18, 2017 13:38:59 GMT
Wcfcnb82 has answered his own question. The board know deep down that Perdiswell is never going to happen, so are pursuing other options alongside Perdiswell, sensible. The Trust know deep down Perdiswell is never going to happen, so are .... carrying on with it, which I guess will be glorious failure.
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Jun 18, 2017 14:03:41 GMT
Wcfcnb82 has answered his own question. The board know deep down that Perdiswell is never going to happen, so are pursuing other options alongside Perdiswell, sensible. The Trust know deep down Perdiswell is never going to happen, so are .... carrying on with it, which I guess will be glorious failure. The only part of that comment that is incorrect is, the first bit, oh and the second bit. Just to clarify, the Supporters Trust have pursued every option open, working alongside the City Council, and effectively making every effort to find a better proposition than Perdiswell. These options have been considered not only for the benefit or the Perdiswell planning process, but also to identify all pieces of land, and understand what could be done to build a football ground, what would need to be done to aim for planning consent, and what could be done in terms of land ownership. A detailed sequential testing was carried out, and furthermore, on the request of the City Council, a further round of land identification was carried out. From my knowledge, I am unaware of the Board of Directors of the football club ever pursuing any other options, in fact I'm not aware of a single piece of land in Worcester that has been subject to any viability testing by the football club. I'm afraid if you think that the football club have a plan B, you are very much mistaken.
|
|
|
Post by jupu on Jun 18, 2017 16:40:05 GMT
It is sensible to have options, but of course there is no certainty that Parsonage Way will be the answer. If you think it's more realistic than Perdiswell downthelane, so be it. Please start championing it here and we can weigh up the pros and cons.
|
|
|
Post by downthelane on Jun 20, 2017 11:10:31 GMT
The big pro is one has Council support and the other doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Jun 20, 2017 14:00:09 GMT
The big pro is one has Council support and the other doesn't. What gives you the idea that Parsonage Way has council support?
|
|
|
Post by downthelane on Jun 20, 2017 14:09:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Jun 20, 2017 14:22:29 GMT
What? That the Supporters Trust have been working with the city council to identify alternative sites? That site has already been discounted. It was an option, like other options, and as the Supporters Trust have always said, and said this to the City Council before the Working Group started evaluating other sites, they would never discount any other site which was found to be more suitable than Perdiswell.
David Blakes own words “It is no secret the city council has been holding talks with the football club, the supporters’ trust and other bodies about potential sites that could be used as a new home for the club.
“Parsonage Way is one of several sites that has been considered.
“No decision has been made about the application for a new stadium at Perdiswell. The application is expected to come before the planning committee in the near future.”
|
|
|
Post by downthelane on Jun 20, 2017 14:51:40 GMT
Make a good politician as you forgot:
"It said a “provisional collective agreement” involving the city council, the football club and Worcestershire Football Association had been reached to push ahead with the plan."
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Jun 20, 2017 15:07:00 GMT
.......said the Worcester News. It must be gospel then. And I only quoted what David Blake said, and he didn't say that, did he? I'm sure that if that was the case, then the City Council, the football club and the Worcestershire FA would have been shouting it from the rooftops, wouldn't they?
|
|
Fred
Reserve Teamer
Posts: 129
|
Post by Fred on Jun 20, 2017 15:49:49 GMT
If its being pushed ahead with...why has everything gone quiet ?
Its taken 4 years to get a full planning application through the system, will this be any quicker ? Is it for a full application or an outline ?
Whats the capacity going to be ? How many car parking spaces ? What will happen to the the massive pylon in the middle of the field ?
What will happen to the farmer and his house ?
What will this stadium look like ?
Come on downthelane......give us a clue !
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Jun 20, 2017 16:12:20 GMT
Trust secretary Rob Crean said he was aware of the Parsonage Way discussion but insisted it was “pie in the sky”.
|
|
|
Post by thatloudbloke on Jun 20, 2017 17:57:56 GMT
just picked this up from local chip shop paper
GREEN councillors in Worcester have spoken out against plans for a new Worcester City FC football stadium at Perdiswell Park.
Controversial plans for the new 4,400 ground will come before Worcester City Council's planning committee on Thursday and a re recommended for approval.
The plans have split opinion, with many saying they back the bid but others citing concerns over congestion and parking problems on matchdays.
But ahead of the vote, Green councillors Neil Laurenson and Matthew Jenkins have spoken out the plans – saying they believe the location is wrong.
They say that, over a period of years, they have spoken with many local residents, the majority of who oppose the idea of a football stadium being built on Perdiswell Park.
In April 2014, Cllr Laurenson submitted a three-page letter to the City Council’s planning department that listed residents’ concerns, including excessive traffic and loss of green space.
He said: "The revised application has not alleviated our concerns.
"We want Worcester City FC to be playing in Worcester again, but the location has to be appropriate.
"The capacity of the planned stadium is more than four times what the club requires in order to play at its current level.
"If it was promoted and required an even bigger stadium, the impact on the local area would be even more severe."
Cllr Laurenson is planning to speak at the planning committee meeting, which takes place at the Guildhall from 1.30pm on Thursday.
In a Worcester News poll last week, 79 per cent of our readers said they backed the Perdiswell stadium plans.
Rob Crean, of Worcester City FC's supporters trust, which has submitted the planning application, says he hopes the plans are approved.
"It has taken a long time, five years, to get to this point," he said.
"We are hopeful, we hope it will be good news.
"If it is approved, we move to the next stage. There's a way to go."
|
|
|
Post by Croc on Jun 20, 2017 18:09:49 GMT
Methinks Laurenson won't be speaking to represent his "constituents" best interests (so invested with his constituents day to day concerns that he manages to do it from his house on the other side of the River Severn in Henwick Road) - he'll be speaking purely to cover his a**e and minimise the risk of him getting voted out of his City Council seat in favour of a Tory candidate
|
|
|
Post by thesecondjack on Jun 20, 2017 18:58:58 GMT
What? That the Supporters Trust have been working with the city council to identify alternative sites? That site has already been discounted. It was an option, like other options, and as the Supporters Trust have always said, and said this to the City Council before the Working Group started evaluating other sites, they would never discount any other site which was found to be more suitable than Perdiswell. David Blakes own words “It is no secret the city council has been holding talks with the football club, the supporters’ trust and other bodies about potential sites that could be used as a new home for the club. “Parsonage Way is one of several sites that has been considered. “No decision has been made about the application for a new stadium at Perdiswell. The application is expected to come before the planning committee in the near future.” Why was Parsonage way discounted during the talks between the trust and council (and club if they appeared)?
|
|
dragon
First Teamer
Posts: 355
|
Post by dragon on Jun 20, 2017 19:02:13 GMT
croc: There has never been a requirement for councillors to reside in the wards they represent just as residence is not a requirement to support a team. If the planning app. is successful, I guess the next focus will be on acquiring the land. Then it will all kick off !
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Jun 20, 2017 19:12:37 GMT
What? That the Supporters Trust have been working with the city council to identify alternative sites? That site has already been discounted. It was an option, like other options, and as the Supporters Trust have always said, and said this to the City Council before the Working Group started evaluating other sites, they would never discount any other site which was found to be more suitable than Perdiswell. David Blakes own words “It is no secret the city council has been holding talks with the football club, the supporters’ trust and other bodies about potential sites that could be used as a new home for the club. “Parsonage Way is one of several sites that has been considered. “No decision has been made about the application for a new stadium at Perdiswell. The application is expected to come before the planning committee in the near future.” Why was Parsonage way discounted during the talks between the trust and council (and club if they appeared)? Every site that was put forward by the City Council as a suitable site went through a level of sequential testing, by a number of people who have experience and expertise when it comes to both planning matters and building matters. That was the process for a number of site considered of merit. Parsonage Way was not even considered of merit to go through this level of process by the City Council. To my knowledge the football club have never been involved in the consideration of any site since before vacating SGL.
|
|
|
Post by thesecondjack on Jun 20, 2017 19:27:48 GMT
Was the testing to see if the current setup of the proposed stadium at Perdiswell could theoretically work at the site, or simply for any football stadia, be that with or without the community facilities that the perdiswell application carries? I don't know what the parsonage way site looks like, beyond the one picture of a gate the WN shared. Is it too small, terrible transport links, no parking space, endangered species living in the area. It could be on a bit too much of a slope and end up with a pitch like the one below. I seriously have no idea why or why not it would/wouldn't be a viable option. smg.photobucket.com/user/viking99/media/forums/footballpitch.jpg.html
|
|
|
Post by Croc on Jun 20, 2017 19:35:07 GMT
croc: There has never been a requirement for councillors to reside in the wards they represent just as residence is not a requirement to support a team. If the planning app. is successful, I guess the next focus will be on acquiring the land. Then it will all kick off ! But the majority of decent councillors who do a great job or have a real connection with their community live in or immediately next to the area they represent. This intimate local knowledge and the ability of the residents in the area to easily call on them, especially at short notice, is a hell of an advantage to all concerned. I still think there should be a rule instituted similar to the Gen Election that you have to actually reside in the area you are standing to represent.
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Jun 20, 2017 20:17:35 GMT
Was the testing to see if the current setup of the proposed stadium at Perdiswell could theoretically work at the site, or simply for any football stadia, be that with or without the community facilities that the perdiswell application carries? I don't know what the parsonage way site looks like, beyond the one picture of a gate the WN shared. Is it too small, terrible transport links, no parking space, endangered species living in the area. It could be on a bit too much of a slope and end up with a pitch like the one below. I seriously have no idea why or why not it would/wouldn't be a viable option. smg.photobucket.com/user/viking99/media/forums/footballpitch.jpg.htmlAs I was not a part of the Working Group, and the contents of their deliberations are under NDA, there is a level of confidentiality around the findings, which I respect. I can only surmise though, that this land was not given consideration ( by the council) due to planning concerns, such as the proximity of ancient woodlands, and the proximity of a Grade 1 listed building. It could also have been on costs of landscaping, drainage issues, infrastructure issues such as overhead cables, natural habitat issues, PROW issues had a bearing on their decision. There could also have been political impact considerations too, after all, many of these kinds of land use decisions are made more from a political posturing consideration, rather than whats best for the City of Worcester and its citizens. And Perdiswell is not immune to that consideration either.
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Jun 20, 2017 20:21:11 GMT
croc: There has never been a requirement for councillors to reside in the wards they represent just as residence is not a requirement to support a team. If the planning app. is successful, I guess the next focus will be on acquiring the land. Then it will all kick off ! But the majority of decent councillors who do a great job or have a real connection with their community live in or immediately next to the area they represent. This intimate local knowledge and the ability of the residents in the area to easily call on them, especially at short notice, is a hell of an advantage to all concerned. I still think there should be a rule instituted similar to the Gen Election that you have to actually reside in the area you are standing to represent. I don't agree with that croc. I believe that you should have the best possible candidates who wish to carry out public office given a chance to be elected. Not just the best candidates who happen to live in the right areas. And that kind of rule would have forbidden you from running in the St Stephens ward at the previous elections.
|
|
|
Post by Croc on Jun 20, 2017 20:33:08 GMT
But the majority of decent councillors who do a great job or have a real connection with their community live in or immediately next to the area they represent. This intimate local knowledge and the ability of the residents in the area to easily call on them, especially at short notice, is a hell of an advantage to all concerned. I still think there should be a rule instituted similar to the Gen Election that you have to actually reside in the area you are standing to represent. I don't agree with that croc. I believe that you should have the best possible candidates who wish to carry out public office given a chance to be elected. Not just the best candidates who happen to live in the right areas. And that kind of rule would have forbidden you from running in the St Stephens ward at the previous elections. I was actually looking at moving up there soon after to be closer to work ;-)
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Jun 20, 2017 20:38:29 GMT
Mr Laurenson NOW believes the site not to be viable but back in 2012/2013 he actually said "the perfect place for the stadium is just up the road at Perdiswell and the club should have been there back in the 1980s".....so why not now ?
|
|
|
Post by Croc on Jun 20, 2017 20:42:27 GMT
Mr Laurenson NOW believes the site not to be viable but back in 2012/2013 he actually said "the perfect place for the stadium is just up the road at Perdiswell and the club should have been there back in the 1980s".....so why not now ? Does this quote appear on the record anywhere? Is there a source for it?
|
|
|
Post by Noboddy aka Lord Ealing on Jun 20, 2017 21:14:29 GMT
I can only surmise though, that this land was not given consideration ( by the council) due to planning concerns, such as the proximity of ancient woodlands, and the proximity of a Grade 1 listed building. It could also have been on costs of landscaping, drainage issues, infrastructure issues such as overhead cables, natural habitat issues, PROW issues had a bearing on their decision. There could also have been political impact considerations too, after all, many of these kinds of land use decisions are made more from a political posturing consideration, rather than whats best for the City of Worcester and its citizens. And Perdiswell is not immune to that consideration either. So why the hell is it now being promoted as a possible site for WCFC?
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Jun 20, 2017 21:37:18 GMT
Its not! At least not by anyone with an interest. Have you heard the football club promote it? Have you heard the City Council promote it? Anything from the Worcestershire FA? If this site was the panacea of all footballing ills in the City of Worcester, then it would be a front line item for all concerned, wouldn't you think? As they say, the truth will always out.
|
|
|
Post by jupu on Jun 20, 2017 21:43:13 GMT
Do you now believe everything you read in the WN downthelane? You were rather dismissive when I referenced a WN article about player recruitment the other day.
|
|
|
Post by Noboddy aka Lord Ealing on Jun 20, 2017 21:46:44 GMT
Has this **** come from the WN or from other disruptive elements?
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Jun 20, 2017 21:55:13 GMT
Mr Laurenson NOW believes the site not to be viable but back in 2012/2013 he actually said "the perfect place for the stadium is just up the road at Perdiswell and the club should have been there back in the 1980s".....so why not now ? Does this quote appear on the record anywhere? Is there a source for it? I do not really know I have copied this from someone else,I suppose it could be in a back copy of the Worcester News, it would take a bit of researching, and time is not on our side with this
|
|
|
Post by jupu on Jun 20, 2017 22:20:27 GMT
Mr Laurenson NOW believes the site not to be viable but back in 2012/2013 he actually said "the perfect place for the stadium is just up the road at Perdiswell and the club should have been there back in the 1980s".....so why not now ? Does this quote appear on the record anywhere? Is there a source for it? Croc - go to your own post dated 25 Jan 2016 in the thread titled Worcester City Council.
|
|