|
|
Post by lancashirelad on May 16, 2017 13:10:36 GMT
I watch bamber bridge quite a lot and they are only one league above and tbh there isn't a big difference overall just some players tend to stand out more than others I was at the Bamber Bridge v Scarborough Athletic match a few weeks back, a great game of football, with a lot talented young players. But I fear the Evostik League is way ahead of the Midland league. |
|
|
|
Post by highbury on May 16, 2017 19:39:28 GMT
I think the quality of the Midland League is being over-played. I saw Bromsgrove v Cleethorpes and v Atherstone and I was impressed especially against Cleethorpes who won the league above equivalent of the ML, Cleethorpes were strong, well-organised but limited. For all its limitations the current City team would beat these teams much more often than not. The quality of the players that City have faced this season are way higher as a general rule which makes the quality of the football played by City look poor. There are skilful players at the ML level but the key differences are the pace of the game at Conference North level and the ability of the CN players to make the right decision under pressure.
|
|
|
|
Post by cloud on May 17, 2017 8:19:55 GMT
The current City team may beat those (Midland league) teams much more often than not, but I don't expect any of them (apart from Lee Hughes, possibly Jacko & some fringe youngsters) will be playing for us next season. We'll have Midland League(ish) standard players, so the games will probably be more even. I can see the tactic being - get the ball to Hughesy!
The Midland League does offer our best (& maybe only) chance of getting to Wembley though. The Vase is open to clubs in step 5 to 7, so as we are one of the higher graded teams, we should be in with a good chance of progressing.
|
|
harley
Squad Member
Posts: 243
|
Post by harley on May 17, 2017 8:21:53 GMT
I think the quality of the Midland League is being over-played. I saw Bromsgrove v Cleethorpes and v Atherstone and I was impressed especially against Cleethorpes who won the league above equivalent of the ML, Cleethorpes were strong, well-organised but limited. For all its limitations the current City team would beat these teams much more often than not. The quality of the players that City have faced this season are way higher as a general rule which makes the quality of the football played by City look poor. There are skilful players at the ML level but the key differences are the pace of the game at Conference North level and the ability of the CN players to make the right decision under pressure. But the "current" City team (i.e. the team who finished the season) are highly unlikely to be with the club come the start of next season. How may of them will want to drop that many leagues and, I assume, that much pay? It is the quality of the players we recruit over the summer who will decide how good we are in the MFL |
|
|
|
Post by lancashirelad on May 24, 2017 8:02:32 GMT
Hi, I am a Boldmere fan and let me warmly welcome you to the MFL Prem. We are a great division with some really friendly clubs and visit and as Hereford showed you can progress here. Of course reading this board I can see many issues but please try and be positive and enjoy the league with us. Look forward to your game at the Mikes !!! BTW there is a MFL board - www.midland.philsbbs.com/forum.asp?FORUM_ID=1 a couple of prickly characters ha ha but at least you get to know us quickly !! Cheers, Ian What Midland League cup(s) will Worcester be involved in next season? And whats the format? I could never understand why the Conference - then National League, got rid of their "League Cup", as it meant for most clubs there was no "cup" to play for after the New Year? |
|
|
|
Post by Down The Pan on May 24, 2017 14:16:57 GMT
To be honest, these league cups are a pain in the a**e for clubs. We already have the league, the FA Cup, the FA Trophy (or Vase) and often a local county cup too. There's no money to be made out of these cups, and too often clubs are having to play ties where they are likely to lose money just putting the game on. And its another distraction to be scheduled in to an already packed league programme.
|
|
|
|
Post by lancashirelad on May 24, 2017 16:45:08 GMT
To be honest, these league cups are a pain in the a**e for clubs. We already have the league, the FA Cup, the FA Trophy (or Vase) and often a local county cup too. There's no money to be made out of these cups, and too often clubs are having to play ties where they are likely to lose money just putting the game on. And its another distraction to be scheduled in to an already packed league programme. Good points "Brooksider", but I don't agree with you. By Christmas/NY most clubs from National North/South downwards are out of the FA Cup and FACT/Vase, and the county cup (in Worcester's case it was pre-season anyway)- so something to play for and win (after NY), is a no-brainer (in my view anyway). It will be interesting to see what the format is for the Midland League Cup - a cup which Worcester could even win (only kidding!). |
|
|
|
Post by wcfcnb82 on May 27, 2017 12:14:06 GMT
 Up coming MFL leafue placements |
|
|
|
Post by lancashirelad on May 27, 2017 13:38:31 GMT
I can remember City playing Rugby Town, Lye, Bromsgrove and Highgate united in the 1970s - the good times are back! |
|
|
|
Post by Dodger on May 29, 2017 10:00:49 GMT
So we are now in the MFL and likely to languish there for many a season (barring Relegation - either through natural selection or financial considerations).
There is not much point in harbouring thoughts of WCFC pushing for promotion as the current board can have no ambition in that area as the finances wouldn't support a higher level 'budget'.
I can only see attendances dropping, which means less cash to the club (or Hampson's back pocket if you prefer) which means less money to pay players, ground rent etc., with the possibility that we have a repetition of last seasons fiasco of voluntary relegation.
A bigger concern, in my opinion, is that our current situation and possible future demise will be pounced on by the Perdiswell NIMBYs, local coucillors, and the planning committee such that reconsideration is given as to whether Worcester need a 4000 stadium for the level of football being played.
Dodger.
|
|
|
|
Post by Croc on May 29, 2017 14:31:58 GMT
"Death by a Thousand Cuts"
|
|
|
|
Post by downthelane on May 29, 2017 16:39:18 GMT
And do we need a 4000 stadium?
|
|
|
|
Post by Croc on May 29, 2017 16:51:12 GMT
And do we need a 4000 stadium? I'd urge everyone not to dignify that with a response... |
|
|
|
Post by charlesrhodeatlas on May 29, 2017 16:58:15 GMT
I think the quality of the Midland League is being over-played. I saw Bromsgrove v Cleethorpes and v Atherstone and I was impressed especially against Cleethorpes who won the league above equivalent of the ML, Cleethorpes were strong, well-organised but limited. For all its limitations the current City team would beat these teams much more often than not. The quality of the players that City have faced this season are way higher as a general rule which makes the quality of the football played by City look poor. There are skilful players at the ML level but the key differences are the pace of the game at Conference North level and the ability of the CN players to make the right decision under pressure. But the "current" City team (i.e. the team who finished the season) are highly unlikely to be with the club come the start of next season. How may of them will want to drop that many leagues and, I assume, that much pay? It is the quality of the players we recruit over the summer who will decide how good we are in the MFL To be honest unless you have a large budget at your disposal (you guys will know whether this will be the case better than me) then "pay" doesn't come into it; players at Midlands League level will play for expenses (genuine or fabricated ones) or will pay a subscription for the honour of playing for Worcester City. Regarding the Vase, to get a good run, you'll need a large slice of luck with the draw. Not sure at what stage you'll enter the competition but it might be the First Round or (perish the thought) the latter stages of the qualifying rounds. The former might involve a longish away trip early on with onerous travel expenses and/or dodgy playing surfaces if the latter. The two finalists this year involved, amongst others, Julio Arca (former Sunderland player) and a the relatively youthful Peter Winn (ex-Stevenage, Chester, Macclesfield,Scunthorpe and capable of still playing much higher) on opposing sides. I imagine both squads weren't cheap to assemble! Not wishing to be the harbinger of doom, fingers crossed you can recruit a competitive squad (on whatever playing budget you have at your disposal) which will do okay, play attractive football you'll all enjoy and bring you success into the bargain. I just think reading some of the posts you might need to put a check on your immediate ambitions. Best of luck, genuinely sad that Worcester in the position they are in. Fingers crossed the fan base can be galvanised and the club return to the good times in the near future. |
|
Fred
Reserve Teamer
Posts: 129
|
Post by Fred on May 29, 2017 17:53:30 GMT
And do we need a 4000 stadium? Why dont you tell us ! |
|
|
|
Post by downthelane on May 29, 2017 17:57:59 GMT
No why doesn't Croc tell us. Why do we need a 4000 stadium?
|
|
Fred
Reserve Teamer
Posts: 129
|
Post by Fred on May 29, 2017 19:27:31 GMT
No why doesn't Croc tell us. Why do we need a 4000 stadium? Because your mate Dave Boddy wants us in the football league ! |
|
|
|
Post by downthelane on May 29, 2017 19:34:02 GMT
Dave Boddy is no friend of mine. Seriously, why do we need a 4000 stadium?
|
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on May 29, 2017 20:53:43 GMT
Malvern Towns Langland stadium has a capacity of 4,000. Its actually quite difficult to design a stadium much smaller than 3,000 - and the cost of design and build between 3,000 and 4,000 is negligible. So why not add scalability? It doesn't all necessarily have to be built at the same time, and gaining planning consent for 3,000 or 4,000 would be pretty much the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by richwidd on May 29, 2017 21:29:40 GMT
Malvern Towns Langland stadium has a capacity of 4,000. Its actually quite difficult to design a stadium much smaller than 3,000 - and the cost of design and build between 3,000 and 4,000 is negligible. So why not add scalability? It doesn't all necessarily have to be built at the same time, and gaining planning consent for 3,000 or 4,000 would be pretty much the same. Unfortunately you are responding to someone who clearly has no knowledge whatsoever of Non League Football (as well as someone who isn't very clever). Malvern Town is a very good example though as the actual perimeter space looks a lot bigger than Perdiswell. Maybe they should move the fence in 20 yards behind the goal and on the one side, that would reduce it to just over 2,000 which is their biggest ever crowd although I reckon they would get a lot more than 4,000 in there, but hold on that is what capacities are for. I've just noticed Rugby Town are in the same league as us (the old VS Rugby), their capacity is 6,000 including 740 seats! Someone mentioned the other day, they would play on pitchcroft if it got us back into Worcester. I wonder what the capacity is there, you don't hear anyone moaning about that, so maybe they should make it smaller, they never fill it!. What would happen if a Million people turned up? (Apart from it being a massive queue). Anyway Downthelane, your muckers seem determined to drag us down to your level in Junior Football, where you will probably shine in front of 30 mums & dads. |
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on May 29, 2017 22:07:47 GMT
Sporting Khalsa's ground, the old Willenhall Town ground has a capacity of 5,000. Its a field, with one stand, and a perimeter fence! Its so difficult to make a ground for less than 4,000 , and at the end of the day, the capacity isn't set based only on size of the ground, but by what third parties consider the capacity to be. SGL was 12,000 , the same ground was then nearer to 6,000, it ended up around 3,000. and apart from the tin stand being removed, the rest remained the same. In fact the improvements at the changing rooms end increased the capacity on that terrace, and the pitch and perimeter stayed the same size. If the Perdiswell plan had a capacity changed to 2,000, it would be the same size, same design, just more room between each person.
|
|
|
|
Post by Croc on May 29, 2017 22:35:25 GMT
No why doesn't Croc tell us. Why do we need a 4000 stadium? I don't have to answer to a Quisling like you. |
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on May 30, 2017 4:04:50 GMT
There seems to be an ongoing abundance of insults to downthelane & admittedly I completely agree that some of his questions are either pretty stupid (or intentionally inflammatory) but does anyone actually know who he or she is ?
|
|
dragon
First Teamer
Posts: 355
|
Post by dragon on May 30, 2017 7:57:41 GMT
We can only hope that WCFC will survive in its new competition. Otherwise what would the Club`s `supporters` have to snipe at ? There are so many fissures I begin to doubt if there can ever be a healing and suspect that some would hate there to be so !
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim Munslow on May 30, 2017 18:54:17 GMT
That's how I feel: I think somewhere else on this board someone categorised supporters into five categories, and I think came into category 4 - supporters who'll just turn up no matter what. I am happy to own up to being in that category, and feel no guilt or shame that's all I want to do. It would appear that most of the people who write on here have other ambitions.
Unless the club's rifts are healed, and healed soon, the only way is further downhill. The house which is divided against itself will surely fall.
|
|
|
|
Post by Noboddy aka Lord Ealing on May 30, 2017 19:34:26 GMT
I still don't see that we have rifts or schisms. We only have one divide - those that want the board out and those that don't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo Bitburg on May 30, 2017 20:03:31 GMT
I still don't see that we have rifts or schisms. We only have one divide - those that want the board out and those that don't. That's how I see it. |
|
|
|
Post by Tim Munslow on May 31, 2017 16:00:39 GMT
You won't "get the board out" unless you persuade the major shareholders (the ones who demanded a poll vote at the EGM at The Star) to change their position, and as far as I can see that ain't gonna happen.
|
|
oxford
First Teamer
Posts: 406
|
Post by oxford on May 31, 2017 17:43:55 GMT
I think you are right there Tim.It must be awful for a lifelong fan like yourself watching the sad end of what has been such a great club. I reckon you've got a couple of years watching some rubbish to look forward to then the whole sorry mess will be over.Personally I will not be parting with another brass farthing to prop it up but I can understand why you don't feel the same way.
|
|
dragon
First Teamer
Posts: 355
|
Post by dragon on May 31, 2017 18:21:38 GMT
I imagine that the Board are hoping and praying that the Perdy Planning App fails. That would make the Trust irrelevant and all effort can then be focussed on raising cash for a ground at Parsonage Way. There will be a half-hearted offer to work together but as long as there`s a few bob in the kitty, the principal shareholders will return to call the shots via their spokesman `The Leigher.` Unlike Tim, I believe WCFC died when SGL was flogged off and what`s left of it ain`t worth opening the lap-top for !
|
|
