|
Post by andymitchell on Oct 10, 2017 17:24:06 GMT
If you can't be there, I'll be asking them to speak slowly and typing as fast I can. bit.ly/2zcKOGu
|
|
|
Post by genghis on Oct 10, 2017 20:17:06 GMT
The club sent no representative?
|
|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on Oct 10, 2017 21:41:59 GMT
Correct. No representative from Worcester City Football club nor from the Worcestershire FA.
A well organised meeting quite correctly resulting in a clear, concise mandate to formally appeal the Perdiswell planning decision.
|
|
|
Post by downthelane on Oct 11, 2017 7:29:29 GMT
Why take quite so long to decide to have a vote to go to appeal, when RC had already declared an appeal would be pursuedif the scheme were to be refused.
The turn out of 41 plus 2 media must feel very disapponting - the majority of supporters either aren’t Trust Members or couldn’t be bothered.
|
|
|
Post by Croc on Oct 11, 2017 7:59:03 GMT
Hiding behind a keyboard again I see? Too cowardly to meet some of us in person to discuss things in an open manner as you’ve been offered the chance to on several occasions before?
I take it from your childish little rant that you weren’t at the meeting last night? I didn’t expect anything less from the likes of you.
Your already minuscule credibility just diminished further...
|
|
|
Post by creaner on Oct 11, 2017 8:12:00 GMT
Why take quite so long to decide to have a vote to go to appeal, when RC had already declared an appeal would be pursuedif the scheme were to be refused. The turn out of 41 plus 2 media must feel very disapponting - the majority of supporters either aren’t Trust Members or couldn’t be bothered. The meeting was to update trust members on the content of the appeal and what the process entailed. A member of the audience suggested a vote to show support which was very welcome. I'm sure the meeting promised by Mr Hampson outlining the proposal for Parsonage Way will be well attended, as will the AGM where shareholders will be updated on the financial state of the football club.
|
|
|
Post by downthelane on Oct 11, 2017 8:16:53 GMT
Das Croc it was a private meeting. I couldn’t have attended unless I joined the membership, so there goes your credibility my friend.
|
|
|
Post by B*ue dragonstander on Oct 11, 2017 8:18:33 GMT
A meeting of members. A discussion on vital issues. A free vote with no unverified proxies. Honest and open views from the Board and a clear strategy. That is the integrity of WCFCST.
Compare and contrast with..
No meeting of members. No discussion on any issues. No opportunity to vote. The lack of independent scrutiny to confirm the veracity of proxy votes. The total lack of any realistic plan. A complete absence of transparency. A failure to account to shareholders on where their money has been used. That is the quality of governance at WCFC Limited.
41 - 0 is the best result the supporters of Worcester City have seen for a long long time.
|
|
|
Post by downthelane on Oct 11, 2017 8:27:25 GMT
You still have to admit though 41 is a poor turnout
|
|
|
Post by downthelane on Oct 11, 2017 8:47:40 GMT
Could have held it in a pub with such a low turnout, and put the venue hire towards the new ground
|
|
|
Post by B*ue dragonstander on Oct 11, 2017 8:48:36 GMT
You still have to admit though 41 is a poor turnout Not as poor as the massive decline in attendances at home matches presided over by the current board nor the massive decline in playing standards er presided over by the Club board and it is 41 more than have attended any general meeting of shareholders this year.
|
|
|
Post by Croc on Oct 11, 2017 9:00:37 GMT
Das Croc it was a private meeting. I couldn’t have attended unless I joined the membership, so there goes your credibility my friend. Let me know when your main man finally decides to hold an AGM where any votes and information on the financial state of the club, on the future of Parsonage Way, or the survival of the club will be taken. Oh - that's right - it'll be a private meeting. I can't attend unless I throw inflated sums of money up the wall to help keep Hampson in free sandwiches and the rest of the Shareholders treated like mushrooms to join that membership. Even then if the majority in the room (by number of bodies) want to vote to push through sweeping changes - your mate Hampo will just call in his cabal of 4 or 5 people to outvote the rest of them and kill any chances of survival at birth, so there goes your credibility bucko.
|
|
|
Post by B*ue dragonstander on Oct 11, 2017 9:01:01 GMT
Could have held it in a pub with such a low turnout, and put the venue hire towards the new ground Alternatively the Directors could have avoided wasting the proceeds of the sale of St George's Lane and put the cash towards the new ground. Interesting that you mention a pub. The quality of decision making by the Board might tend to suggest that most of their meetings have been held in a pub with conclusions reached near closing time after a jolly good sup! This Board would be hard put to manage a pub team let alone the top footballing representatives of our fine City.
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Oct 11, 2017 10:18:33 GMT
Why take quite so long to decide to have a vote to go to appeal, when RC had already declared an appeal would be pursuedif the scheme were to be refused. The turn out of 41 plus 2 media must feel very disapponting - the majority of supporters either aren’t Trust Members or couldn’t be bothered. [ That's an easy one to answer. The ST stated that they would look to appeal, and have been discussing with those qualified to consider how and what the appeal process could look like in terms of cost and viability. Having taken sound advice, we were then in a position to present our findings to members. This is the way an open and democratic Community Benefit Society is obligated to work.
|
|
|
Post by jupu on Oct 11, 2017 11:30:43 GMT
downthelane - I think your opinions on both the Trust and Perdiswell are well known now. I struggle to understand why you persist in trying to make snide comments on here as they serve no purpose except to satisfy your own desire.
It is of course useful to read a range of views. The fact that you are in a minority here does perhaps underline the fact that the Board have a big task on their hands to win over hearts and minds on Parsonage Way.
If you want to do something positive for the club then I suggest you lose your anonymity, start talking to people and try and build a case to support your preferred way forward.
I was working last night so was unable to attend the meeting. I read the WN feed and the comments made by those speaking for the Trust came over as clear, sensible, rational and in no way the voice of naysayers. It should be pointed out too that many of those voting must be the very same shareholders and season ticket holders that the club needs to convince to buy into PW.
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo Bitburg on Oct 11, 2017 15:34:36 GMT
Why take quite so long to decide to have a vote to go to appeal, when RC had already declared an appeal would be pursuedif the scheme were to be refused. The turn out of 41 plus 2 media must feel very disapponting - the majority of supporters either aren’t Trust Members or couldn’t be bothered. I was working last night so FU
|
|
|
Post by Woodenose on Oct 11, 2017 21:03:29 GMT
I was flying back from my hols,so could not attend
|
|
|
Post by downthelane on Oct 12, 2017 8:57:45 GMT
But still, 41 is hardly representative of the supporters.
|
|
|
Post by Down The Pan on Oct 12, 2017 10:45:58 GMT
Its representative enough, and its far more representative than 1 is. I don't quite know what you're trying to achieve with your constant negativity, I'm not sure you do either.
|
|
|
Post by Noboddy aka Lord Ealing on Oct 12, 2017 10:56:23 GMT
Could this downthelane be one of the fabled "naysayers".
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Oct 12, 2017 11:19:49 GMT
He seems to be naysaying far more than any of the 41 at the meeting, far more than any of the posters on this banter board, and far more than any supporters going to games. I really struggle to understand what he wants, or what his purpose is, other than to try and find a negative angle to anything that his fellow supporters try to do to get our club back where it belongs. I've been to AGMs where less than 20 from a shareholder list of over 400 turned up, but you know what? that's of no relevance. The fact is that in both cases those who were able to turn up did so, and a meeting was held. There's a certain irony in a man criticising an open transparent democratic meeting, when he himself is ashamed to reveal his own identity.
|
|
|
Post by jupu on Oct 12, 2017 12:28:51 GMT
But still, 41 is hardly representative of the supporters. More representative than the number of shareholders who decided the outcome of the 2016 EGM.
|
|
niels
City Legend
Posts: 1,741
|
Post by niels on Oct 12, 2017 13:51:14 GMT
He seems to be naysaying far more than any of the 41 at the meeting, far more than any of the posters on this banter board, and far more than any supporters going to games. I really struggle to understand what he wants, or what his purpose is, other than to try and find a negative angle to anything that his fellow supporters try to do to get our club back where it belongs. I've been to AGMs where less than 20 from a shareholder list of over 400 turned up, but you know what? that's of no relevance. The fact is that in both cases those who were able to turn up did so, and a meeting was held. There's a certain irony in a man criticising an open transparent democratic meeting, when he himself is ashamed to reveal his own identity. It's not hard to figure out who DTL is. He used to be Boddy's best mate and then he latched onto Hampson a few years ago.
|
|
|
Post by Noboddy aka Lord Ealing on Oct 12, 2017 14:45:36 GMT
Boddy had mates?
|
|
|
Post by B*ue dragonstander on Oct 12, 2017 15:44:20 GMT
But still, 41 is hardly representative of the supporters. It's over 20% of the last home gate which is pretty good for a totally non controversial matter. Were that Man U that would be the equivalent of over 15,000 people. It would be better if the Directors decided to represent the supporters by actually participating positively in establishing a viable credible plan for the future. Then again thinking about it who would want the current Board to participate in anything connected with the Club?
|
|
|
Post by downthelane on Oct 15, 2017 17:00:01 GMT
It is a dire turnout and you know it
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Oct 15, 2017 17:15:22 GMT
Why wonder why WCFC Board never attended.... Hampson has said that WCFC are not interested in The Perdiswell project & that The Club will never play there. THEY ARE NOT INTERESTED..... So why would they attend, they will continue to bury their head in the sand or cover up some misdoings.
|
|
niels
City Legend
Posts: 1,741
|
Post by niels on Oct 16, 2017 9:29:33 GMT
It's not Colin. Spelling too good. Try a certain tall Herefordshire resident.
|
|
|
Post by The Verner on Oct 16, 2017 10:39:29 GMT
It's not Colin. Spelling too good. Try a certain tall Herefordshire resident. Tyler Weir
|
|
niels
City Legend
Posts: 1,741
|
Post by niels on Oct 16, 2017 10:53:03 GMT
It's not Colin. Spelling too good. Try a certain tall Herefordshire resident. Tyler Weir Not tall! But very close in residence.
|
|