|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Dec 21, 2017 17:30:04 GMT
Not if used, as in this case, as in the uncountable noun form - you've simply googled Consultation and gone for the first option of a variable noun, so lazy!
Consultation - of a book or other source of information, looking at it in order to find out certain facts.
So that is the idea of a consultation in planning terms, to look at sources of information to find out facts. Sources of information being, the architects doodles, the Board of Directors , the Worcestershire FA, the City Council, who are the providers of the facts.........except, there are so far, no facts.
What is most disappointing about the whole Parsonage Way debacle to date, is that, it really should not be the football club who are priming the process. It should be the City Council and the Worcestershire FA.
|
|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on Dec 21, 2017 17:34:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Dec 21, 2017 17:38:15 GMT
Hey, I've had a lightbulb moment to prevent all speculation as to whether the at present un costed, unknown Phase 1 plus all the site criteria changes are affordable, plus knowing how much un costed further phases will cost ...... It's a rather old fashioned concept I know, but if Anthony really wants supporters to get behind these vague drawings... The Board calls an AGM ( is lapdog Colin still on the case ) , produces full sets of accounts, and tells the shareholders how much money the club has, how much the drawings of Phase 1 would cost to build, the projected cash flow for the future, that sort of thing. Its rather old fashioned yes, to be honest it doesnt even need to be a General Meeting (Colin has now said we don't have to hold one , so we won't hold one, not until after the planning application for PW has been approved!) Why not hold a private meeting of shareholders and go through all of this with them? Back in the days of Nunnery Way, Dave Boddy did this, along with the project partners like SMD, and Alpha. He got a bit of a rough ride at times, but at least there was an openness. These consultations should have taken place after completion of the council feasibility studies, after a properly drawn up and costed phase 1 was ready for presentation, and AFTER shareholder consultations. This has been something of a PR disaster, yet the reality is, if a large bowl can be cut into the hillside at Parsonage Way, and plateau'd as in the drawing, at a price that is affordable, and susatainable, then maybe this could be a nice little football ground. Who knows?
|
|
|
Post by simples on Dec 21, 2017 21:03:41 GMT
Not sure if this is the correct place to post it but here goes.
I started following the City 50+ years ago. St. George's Lane was the home and while facilities could not compare with Aggborough (today) they were better than most at their level. Having sold the ground what on earth is going to persuade someone to go to watch a footy match at a much lower level in a 'ground' of very limited facilities in the back of beyond. i.e. who are going to be the fans of tomorrow.
I have also had the pleasure of being introduced to basketball and can say I was hooked instantly with the fast paced game and family friendly atmosphere in comfortable surroundings. There are many people there who like me follow Worcester sport in general i.e. footy, cricket, basketball - not so much rugby. All are dismayed by the situation at the footy club. In the meantime the basketball club continues to prove popular with attendances far outstripping those at the footy club. So how has a brand new club (16-17 years) risen to the top level of basketball? No doubt the University has played a big part. Is there anything that can be learnt?
I suppose the point I/we are all trying to make is that the location of any ground is fundamental to its future development and sustainability. At the same time maybe the basketball club can be an example of how to progress and reach the top level - I would be more than happy to see a Worcester football club reach the top level of non league football in 15 years.
Meanwhile PW is nothing more than a distraction and if the council wish to throw away £100k to be told it is unsuitable, something most people on this board have told them for free, then the voters will remember that during the next council elections.
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Dec 21, 2017 21:37:50 GMT
I know the man very much responsible for the whole "customer experience" at Worcester Wolves, and believe me, he had to work very hard to convince the University that they could build a brand, but by God he did it! He is an incredible networker, who has worked to link experiences across the circket club, rugby club and basketball club. When I was on the Board, I did try to introduce him to the Board, but they didn't want to know.
|
|
|
Post by Noboddy aka Lord Ealing on Dec 22, 2017 11:28:46 GMT
I'm not sure of the value of posting on here anymore as it all seems so hopeless and I've lost the faith.
However, this latest development shows how low the club has sunk. The whole NW fiasco was about opening up a green corridor along the motorway to development. The deals were worth a huge amount of money and no doubt many land owners; solicitors; officials; agents etc etc received highly lucrative "consultancy fees" and other "expenses".
It meant the death of WCFC- but why should that bother them?
Now here we go again. Only this time, instead of using a viable active football club as bait for development on the other side of the motorway, they are dragging the dead corpse of our once loved club to the planning slab.
Shame on them.
For goodness sake stop supporting this disgraceful regime and let the club die with some dignity.
|
|
niels
City Legend
Posts: 1,741
|
Post by niels on Dec 22, 2017 14:26:49 GMT
I went and had a look at the pretty drawings on Wednesday night, and had some questions for the club/architects (at the time I was there, 7.20pm, this was Marc Wilcox and the architect). Anything I asked about costs was batted away with "we're waiting for the surveys to come back". Anything I asked about the actual drawings was answered by "these are just sketches it may not look anything like this in reality" or "we can just change that". To me the way they are proposing to build the stadium at the moment seems to be an extremely expensive solution (an awful lot of expensive digging and landscaping) and that's without knowing what the topography reports come back with. Then there's the fact that the final stage shows a 5000 all seater stadium, which, to me, shows the lack of understanding of non/lower-league fans (many of whom like standing), as well as the Football League rules, by the project leaders (as I understand it, the requirement is 5000 capacity with 2000 seats by the third year of being in League 2).
However I don't believe that the purpose of this consultation was for the fans and residents to find out what the club wants to do. I actually think its purpose was the exact opposite. Having been pushed into Parsonage Way by the Tories on the City council's dislike of the Perdiswell project, the board, who have never had an original idea in their time at WCFC, panicked and quickly threw some money at a local architect. They then realised that they would have to come up with some actual ideas to back the plan up. How would they achieve that? The answer was to arrange some consultation evenings and get the fans to give those ideas to them by not answering any of their questions. A good idea if it wasn't so obvious to anyone with more than half a brain.
|
|
niels
City Legend
Posts: 1,741
|
Post by niels on Dec 22, 2017 14:32:12 GMT
By chance I fell over this when searching for something completely different. How things don't change. Layland to battle on in City boardroomQuite why it was in the Lancashire Telegraph is anybody's guess.
|
|
|
Post by jupu on Dec 22, 2017 17:19:33 GMT
Niels makes a good point about the final outcome being all-seater. This I'm sure falls into the "nothing yet set in stone category." I agree with his sentiments and I imagine a mix of seats and terraces - like Aggborough - would be more affordable. Maybe the architects misunderstood the brief.
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Dec 22, 2017 19:09:49 GMT
I really wouldn't worry about the final outcome. Thats a good 15 years down the line, if ever. I think the architects understood the brief alright "look, there's enough gullible fools out there who will believe what they see on pretty pictures, we'll fill in the gaps with a photo of the Chairman arms akimbo in a field.... draw it like one of your french girls!"
Niels is no gullible fool!
|
|
|
Post by Croc on Dec 25, 2017 16:21:02 GMT
Just wanted to check - did anyone get an AGM for Christmas this morning?
|
|
|
Post by genghis on Dec 25, 2017 19:06:36 GMT
No, but Merry Christmas to all (even Hampson).
|
|
niels
City Legend
Posts: 1,741
|
Post by niels on Dec 25, 2017 23:00:30 GMT
I went and had a look at the pretty drawings on Wednesday night, and had some questions for the club/architects (at the time I was there, 7.20pm, this was Marc Wilcox and the architect). Anything I asked about costs was batted away with "we're waiting for the surveys to come back". Anything I asked about the actual drawings was answered by "these are just sketches it may not look anything like this in reality" or "we can just change that". To me the way they are proposing to build the stadium at the moment seems to be an extremely expensive solution (an awful lot of expensive digging and landscaping) and that's without knowing what the topography reports come back with. Then there's the fact that the final stage shows a 5000 all seater stadium, which, to me, shows the lack of understanding of non/lower-league fans (many of whom like standing), as well as the Football League rules, by the project leaders (as I understand it, the requirement is 5000 capacity with 2000 seats by the third year of being in League 2). However I don't believe that the purpose of this consultation was for the fans and residents to find out what the club wants to do. I actually think its purpose was the exact opposite. Having been pushed into Parsonage Way by the Tories on the City council's dislike of the Perdiswell project, the board, who have never had an original idea in their time at WCFC, panicked and quickly threw some money at a local architect. They then realised that they would have to come up with some actual ideas to back the plan up. How would they achieve that? The answer was to arrange some consultation evenings and get the fans to give those ideas to them by not answering any of their questions. A good idea if it wasn't so obvious to anyone with more than half a brain. I forgot the "we just wrote Nature Reserve there cause there is a water run off pond, and we might get a duck or two" answer from the architect. Shortly afterwards the Nature Reserve was made into a car park by Marc Wilcox, who also removed one of the training pitches when I asked how cars would get round there.
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Dec 26, 2017 0:03:12 GMT
I'm not sure of the value of posting on here anymore as it all seems so hopeless and I've lost the faith. However, this latest development shows how low the club has sunk. The whole NW fiasco was about opening up a green corridor along the motorway to development. The deals were worth a huge amount of money and no doubt many land owners; solicitors; officials; agents etc etc received highly lucrative "consultancy fees" and other "expenses". It meant the death of WCFC- but why should that bother them? Now here we go again. Only this time, instead of using a viable active football club as bait for development on the other side of the motorway, they are dragging the dead corpse of our once loved club to the planning slab. Shame on them. For goodness sake stop supporting this disgraceful regime and let the club die with some dignity. I agree with this. I have only bothered to go and watch City twice this season (both were away games) and I’m not really missing it. I just wish this whole sorry saga would end because I’m not enjoying it at all
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Jan 7, 2018 15:05:00 GMT
I noticed that there have been some preliminary ground tests carried out at Parsonage Way, apparently paid for by the council. I wonder if this means that this site is going to be a viable proposition. If it turns out that it is not only a site that can be used, passes planning & is affordable, will The Trust support it or will The Trust continue to oppose The Board of Directors ?
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Jan 7, 2018 15:21:29 GMT
The Supporters Trust have NEVER opposed the Board of Directors plans for Parsonage Way, because, to date, the ST, along with everyone else have not seen any plans for Parsonage Way. As we stand today, Parsonage Way is no more than a concept, and these preliminary ground tests are exactly that, preliminary tests done by the council to understand whether or not a viable scheme could be put together for this plot of land. The Supporters Trust objective is, and always has been, to support and promote fan ownership of the football club, wherever the football club may be playing. In terms of ground plans, the Supporters Trust are not a consultee of the business, that is the role of shareholders.
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Jan 7, 2018 16:24:14 GMT
I do understand that the trust are looking for community ownership but I do not understand that they are not ‘anti board’. However, you have not answered a very simple question, because I am wondering if this project (with everyone’s backing) could become a stepping stone to community ownership rather than Ltd company ownership.
|
|
|
Post by jupu on Jan 7, 2018 17:12:15 GMT
Surely these are questions for the Board and the WFA?
As stated above, the ST have not indicated any opposition to PW.
However, establishing whether the site can be used, gaining planning permission and producing a scheme that is affordable are all substantial pieces of work.
These tests are some of the first steps on the journey, and by the time of the next consultation the Club may have some information to share on the outcome of the tests.
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Jan 7, 2018 18:46:48 GMT
I do understand that the trust are looking for community ownership but I do not understand that they are not ‘anti board’. However, you have not answered a very simple question, because I am wondering if this project (with everyone’s backing) could become a stepping stone to community ownership rather than Ltd company ownership. It could, but that is a decision for the Board and the shareholders. The Supporters Trust are not anti- Parsonage Way. If Parsonage Way can provide a viable , sustainable and affordable solution to bringing Worcester City FC back to Worcester, then that's great news for all.
|
|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on Jan 18, 2018 0:58:31 GMT
|
|
niels
City Legend
Posts: 1,741
|
Post by niels on Jan 30, 2018 17:14:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jupu on Jan 30, 2018 20:13:11 GMT
It could be good news, but - like most of us I suspect - I have no idea what this means. Isn't there supposed to be another consultation in February?
|
|
|
Post by zeke on Jan 30, 2018 20:52:12 GMT
No mention of pedestrian crossings? Such a busy road, no chance of walking and usual bus service . Everyone would need to drive. Great for the environment.
|
|
harley
Squad Member
Posts: 242
|
Post by harley on Jan 30, 2018 21:02:17 GMT
I downloaded Lidar data from the gov.uk website to get an idea of the topography of Parsonage Way. There is a ten-metre fall in ground level from the south-west corner to the south-east corner of the site, most of it up to the approximate position of the pond. That still leaves a lot of earthwork movements to make the stadium fit in as well as for the training pitches and car parking. Free software such as QGis can view the data. data.gov.uk/dataset/lidar-composite-dsm-1m1
|
|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on Jan 30, 2018 21:44:04 GMT
I've no idea what this means either. Perhaps the club could enlighten us all via an AGM, Colin ?
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Jan 30, 2018 22:40:07 GMT
This is exactly the kind of thing that you'd call a shareholder meeting for. Even Boddy & co did. But this lot? Not a prayer, so why not?
|
|
|
Post by cloud on Feb 2, 2018 8:48:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Feb 2, 2018 9:34:57 GMT
Still no mention whatsoever of involving shareholders in the process. We already have project change and slippage, with Hampson now saying that the planning application will be in in June. It was originally planning to be heard in June. So that'll mean a slip in the costing of the project too. I love the bit about more car parking in the final phase! In the boards own view, final phase won't be for at least 15 years, probably longer.
|
|
|
Post by The Verner on Feb 2, 2018 10:57:02 GMT
There is a slight movement further across but it is also now angled differently. Hard to put into words. On car parking from Jem, Henry, Bobby or whatever name he is going by this week, the car parking has increased PER phase with a bigger grand total at the final stage, this the biggest concern from local residents and supporters who attended the public consultations.
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Feb 2, 2018 12:00:35 GMT
Thats not what you have been quoted as saying in the article in the WN
“We are planning for the car parking capacity to be increased in the final phase and the position of the stadium is going to be moved slightly following feedback from the topographic survey."
Not that it matters, as I believe that the planning application will be for the full final phase anyway. Is this correct? Can anyone confirm whether full planning approval, or outline approval is being sought?
I think that the biggest concern for supporters (and indeed club owners aka shareholders) is viability, sustainability and affordability. Who gives a damn if there are 20 or 2000 car parking spaces, if the scheme can't be sustained in a viable and affordable way. And to date, as usual the silence is deafening.
Sorry I change my profile moniker Vernon or whatever his name is
|
|