|
Post by Croc on Oct 16, 2017 10:58:36 GMT
I’m not too clued up on who is based Welsh side...
PM if you wish
|
|
|
Post by Noboddy aka Lord Ealing on Oct 16, 2017 11:44:03 GMT
Are you talking a load of Bullocks Niels?
|
|
niels
City Legend
Posts: 1,741
|
Post by niels on Oct 16, 2017 13:05:09 GMT
Yes, as always.
|
|
|
Post by The Verner on Oct 16, 2017 13:24:52 GMT
I’m not too clued up on who is based Welsh side... PM if you wish Welsh Side......Watch it Sunshine....them lot the other side of hills is my birth place !
|
|
|
Post by Down The Pan on Oct 16, 2017 13:34:10 GMT
I doubt it, Andy would write posts at least 17 times longer, analyse it to death and still end up perched on the fence !!
|
|
|
Post by thesecondjack on Oct 16, 2017 14:00:51 GMT
It isn't Andy. No idea who it is, mind.
|
|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on Oct 16, 2017 19:53:08 GMT
My money was also on Andy aka " The Creosote Kid "
|
|
|
Post by Tim Munslow on Oct 23, 2017 19:09:31 GMT
Amidst all the Hollywood-style mutual back-slapping about the decision to pursue Perdiswell, coupled with posts loaded with derision, hatred and scorn for anything they don't like, from the trolls who hide behind the safety of their nom-de-plumes, perhaps it would be as well to consider the other point of view. So, acting as devil's advocate if nothing else, I would ask these two questions:-
1) Has it ever struck anyone that the Supporters Trust might just be WRONG in pursuing their appeal?
2) If there were 41 people at the meeting (I think that was the figure quoted on here) and the average attendance at "home" games this season is 355 (not including last Saturday) then those 41 people represent under 12% (one eighth) of the true supporters who pay at the gate, so how can they claim to be acting on behalf of the supporters?
I sense a growing disconnect between The Supporters Trust and the actual supporters.
|
|
|
Post by ac on Oct 23, 2017 19:18:51 GMT
Amidst all the Hollywood-style mutual back-slapping about the decision to pursue Perdiswell, coupled with posts loaded with derision, hatred and scorn for anything they don't like, from the trolls who hide behind the safety of their nom-de-plumes, perhaps it would be as well to consider the other point of view. So, acting as devil's advocate if nothing else, I would ask these two questions:- 1) Has it ever struck anyone that the Supporters Trust might just be WRONG in pursuing their appeal? 2) If there were 41 people at the meeting (I think that was the figure quoted on here) and the average attendance at "home" games this season is 355 (not including last Saturday) then those 41 people represent under 12% (one eighth) of the true supporters who pay at the gate, so how can they claim to be acting on behalf of the supporters? I sense a growing disconnect between The Supporters Trust and the actual supporters. Unless I missed it, no one at the meeting was against PW. It's just that there doesn't appear to be much of an actual plan for it yet. The ST might be wrong to continue the appeal but it seems daft to me to not carry on with the appeal at this stage. The number of people at the meeting was small. It's still far more people than those that have voted to support the Club's idea for PW so far. If the ST win the appeal and the next day the Club present a credible and achievable plan for PW then there'll be a difficult decision about what to back. As it is, I can only see one idea to help bring City back to Worcester.
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Oct 23, 2017 19:29:11 GMT
I guess that if you were at the meeting Tim Munslow, you'd know the answers already, and if you weren't? Why are you asking?
|
|
|
Post by zeke on Oct 23, 2017 19:40:04 GMT
Exactly. As it stands there are 41 actual votes for Perdiswell. O actual votes for Parsonage. So 41 may be a low number, but it's a lot higher than 0.
|
|
|
Post by sleepinggiant on Oct 23, 2017 19:43:24 GMT
Amidst all the Hollywood-style mutual back-slapping about the decision to pursue Perdiswell, coupled with posts loaded with derision, hatred and scorn for anything they don't like, from the trolls who hide behind the safety of their nom-de-plumes, perhaps it would be as well to consider the other point of view. So, acting as devil's advocate if nothing else, I would ask these two questions:- 1) Has it ever struck anyone that the Supporters Trust might just be WRONG in pursuing their appeal? 2) If there were 41 people at the meeting (I think that was the figure quoted on here) and the average attendance at "home" games this season is 355 (not including last Saturday) then those 41 people represent under 12% (one eighth) of the true supporters who pay at the gate, so how can they claim to be acting on behalf of the supporters? I sense a growing disconnect between The Supporters Trust and the actual supporters. Amazing stuff. Don't even get me started on the 'true' supporters being the ones paying on the gate and not the guys putting there own time and money for years into actually trying to find a future for the club.
|
|
|
Post by jupu on Oct 23, 2017 21:08:10 GMT
What an insult to suggest that those voting at the Trust meeting are not "true" supporters.
|
|
oxford
First Teamer
Posts: 406
|
Post by oxford on Oct 23, 2017 21:27:25 GMT
I know we don't see eye to eye on everything Julian but I am 100% in agreement with you here!
|
|
|
Post by jupu on Oct 23, 2017 21:47:43 GMT
Thank you, I appreciate what you say. We might see some things differently but I would like to think we go about it in a grown up way. I think it's a symptom of our mutual frustration with the whole mess.
|
|
|
Post by Noboddy aka Lord Ealing on Oct 23, 2017 21:52:37 GMT
Hear, hear Mr P.
|
|
|
Post by rushwickdon on Oct 24, 2017 6:01:00 GMT
So, using the logic of Mr Munslow, if all those people at the ST meeting were not attending games, then they cannot be supporters of the club because they do not pay at the gate.
An absolutely ludicrous statement.
|
|
oxford
First Teamer
Posts: 406
|
Post by oxford on Oct 24, 2017 6:40:26 GMT
Would be laughable if it wasn't so insulting. And I am not one of those who has worked so hard for so long only to be regarded in this way.
|
|
|
Post by B*ue dragonstander on Oct 24, 2017 9:44:49 GMT
I think Tim is absolutely correct to raise the issues about the ground and the level of connection between the Trust and the rest of the supporters. I do object to being labelled a troll though !
Having supported City since 1972 I no longer attend matches and haven’t done since the 2008 EGM for reasons that have been aired on this board numerous times and continue to be the basis for the disconnect between a lot of supporters and the Club. I am not a member of the Trust any longer through sheer laziness but I am ready to rejoin when there is something concrete that might benefit from my input whether that be fiscal or physical.
So where are we? I think the 800 who turned up at Claines for a meaningless pre season friendly would vote to bring City home and it is pretty obviously pointless having a Worcester FC that plays in exile as over time the most important connection that a club has , that with its local fan base, will wither and die. I suspect that the official attendance is already boosted by locals who do not support City but just like to watch a game on a Saturday plus a number of away team fans. To quote 12% is rather simplistic.
So if we agree that the Club needs to come home what are th,e options? We are not far off 5 years in exile and the Directors have delivered NOTHING in terms of getting the Club home. That is not what supporters want or deserve. The Directors have shown no initiative, drive or skill that leads anyone to believe this situation will suddenly change. Leopards/spots you know what I mean. All they deliver is meaningless hot air from time to time when what is needed is a strategy and a plan of action.
So the City Council identifies a suitable site for the Club at Perdiswell. The only body prepared to accept with full commitment the invitation to prepare and submit a costly planning application is the Trust in the belief that it is a massive step forward in helping City get back to Worcester. The Directors tag along with the plan (joint applicants). The application is finally heard after many many process delays and is supported by the Chief Planning Officer. So we know the ground is in the best available location. Then Councillors vote it down as they are entitled to do but quite rightly an appeal is to be made.
What does the Board do in response to this? They should back the appeal of course as it is route 1 back the City. But hold on. The Directors know that the Club as constituted simply does not have and cannot raise the money to build Perdiswell without sacrificing their control of the Club which, no matter what else, they do not want to do. Only the Trust with its remit for true community ownership of the Club has the model that may permit the necessary funding to deliver Perdiswell and deliver what the supporters and the future of the Club needs.
From the outside this is the best option to bring City home soonest. I don’t see that the Trust has anything other than the best interests of supporters at heart and it is a truly democratic body. If there were supporters who felt strongly that some other course of action was better or right then they are very quiet.
I accept that Perdiswell is a long way from delivery but it is light years closer than some distant black hole near the Motorway that is unlikely ever to receive planning consent and even if it did it would be unviable for the same reasons that Nunnery Way was unviable as a football stadium site. The most laughable comment so far on the subject has been that City will actually be playing there at the start of the season after next. If that does not prove that Directors have no clue and no desire to do the right thing for Club and fans then I don’t know what does.
If Perdiswell falls at appeal it falls. If it succeeds there is a possibility of City actually coming home before we all shuffle off this mortal coil.
In short the Trust is acting in accordance with the wishes of the fan base as far as we can know and is definitely doing the right thing to secure the future of the Club we love.
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Oct 24, 2017 9:46:45 GMT
Let me just explain something to Tim Munslow regarding the appeal.
The Supporters Trust have sought independent expert advice following the planning decision, and that independent expert advice suggests that there is very sound grounds for an appeal to overturn the planning committee decision. An appeal will be at nominal cost to the Supporters Trust ( and NOT the £50,000 that Anthony Hampson mentioned in his press release) and appeal is the final stage of a planning process, after which point the process is exhausted. The Supporters Trust had already been given a mandate from its members to pursue the process to exhaustion. The rationale behind appeal was presented to members who voted unanimously to continue with the appeal, even though no vote was actually required to continue, so the ST have a double mandate. The worst case scenario is that the appeal is lost - that's it! So, why not proceed with the appeal process?
Meanwhile, all decisions relating to the football club are being made by 4 people - those 4 people have made decisions that have led to £150,000 losses per year, and decided to do nothing about it until the team got relegated. Those 4 people made a decision to make every player available for sale last season, thereby increasing chances of relegation. Those 4 people have made a decision to have the team demoted to Step 7 in the pyramid. At no time did those 4 people communicate in any way to supporters, or indeed to shareholders. Those 4 people corroborated with the City Council, and just prior to the Perdiswell planning being heard, asked the Supporters Trust to remove , drop, cancel the Perdiswell planning application in its entirety, and to sign a pre-written document backing Parsonage Way, even though no-one including those 4 people have any plans for Parsonage Way. Those 4 people refuse to meet with fans, refuse to hold fans forums, they refuse to communicate with the shareholders that they are elected to represent, they refuse to hold AGMs, and present the companies financial position. So, I make it that those 4 people make up approximately 1% of supporters - 1% !!! And you accuse the Supporters Trust of not being representative?
|
|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on Oct 24, 2017 10:14:08 GMT
Two excellent posts which are absolutely correct and factual. The 4 man Board is slowly leading the Club into oblivion. As I've said many times, Hampson and Layland have been there for 9 years, Wilcox for 6 years, Pinches for 2.
Between them they have presided over a footballing disaster both on and off the pitch. Their decision making and business model are continuing failures.
Whilst everyone is entitled to their opinion, Tim Munslow's apparent wish to carry on as we are, and to get behind the Board despite their atrocious track record, is odd.
|
|
niels
City Legend
Posts: 1,741
|
Post by niels on Oct 24, 2017 10:26:19 GMT
I had started to write a long rant in answer to Tim's question (I am a slow writer and it would take some time) but everything I wanted to say has been said by the two posts above, just less angrily and more elequently.
|
|
|
Post by B*ue dragonstander on Oct 24, 2017 10:48:15 GMT
I think it is also fair to say that this forum ...and it is a means for communication between supporters of the Club...is a forum where the malcontents are in the vast majority. It is important that those who express alternative views are not shouted down but are read and responded to thoughtfully.
I do reject utterly TM’s comments about Hollywood, derision, hatred and scorn. The responses here are, in the main, comments on the actions of those whose duty it is to act in the best interests of stakeholders in our footie club. Where we agree or disagree this is a platform to express those views nothing more nothing less.
As Always says it has been nine years since Hampson was put in place by the former directors and we are still waiting for Board to produce anything like a realistic and viable plan that has even half a chance of delivering a rosier future for the Club. How long must we wait? If the Directors have any serious and thought through proposals that can take us from where we are to where we really want to be that are superior to the current options let us have them. Let’s have some detail and an action and resource plan and some sort of delivery timetable so that we can see that progress is possible. It takes more that a few photocopied sheets of paper or a few platitudes delivered to the local press that’s for sure.
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Oct 24, 2017 12:44:12 GMT
Hollywood-style? I mean, honestly??? The only thing I have in common with Harvey Weinstein is that I'm overweight! Although it has been said before that I bear a resemblance to Jeff Bridges.
|
|
oxford
First Teamer
Posts: 406
|
Post by oxford on Oct 24, 2017 13:00:18 GMT
To be honest it's not surprising that some on here are prepared to forgive Brad so readily when you think of what they have already forgiven. Perhaps they are correct and the likes of me are wrong but I will happily be wrong!I harbour grudges and I will neither forgive nor forget what some have done/are doing to WCFC if I live to be 120!
|
|
|
Post by gallardo on Oct 24, 2017 13:23:00 GMT
Some people seem to idolise players so much. Looks like the club have already made the decision to do bugger all as the press officer Jack Hundley is saying Chin up chaps. Wait and see what people are like to your face. A bit different to his comments about Palf, who he got banned.
|
|
|
Post by thesecondjack on Oct 24, 2017 14:42:31 GMT
I got someone banned? No, I don't have that power.
|
|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on Oct 24, 2017 14:42:49 GMT
gallardo you're talking nonsense.
No one got Palf banned other than Palf himself for his own stupidity, when one would like to think that he should know better. For once, the Board on this occasion did make the correct decision, banning him to the end of the season.
|
|
|
Post by thesecondjack on Oct 24, 2017 14:50:28 GMT
For the record, I've not heard of any decision made by the club on the matter.
"Me, Lee (Hughes) and the board are dealing with it internally and we are going to make a statement on it later on in the week,” Snape said. (http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/sport/wcfc/15614073.City_skipper_Birch__let_himself_down__in_foul_mouthed_social_media_spat_with_Weir__says_Snape/)
I'm neither John Snape, Lee Hughes or a member of the board, so I'm not the one making the decision. Same as I wasn't the one making a decision on an incident a couple of weeks ago.
|
|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on Oct 24, 2017 15:06:38 GMT
thesecondjack - I appreciate it must be frustrating, but no one sensible thought that you had any involvement in getting anyone banned.
|
|