|
|
Post by dorothy on Sept 30, 2007 21:02:28 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by darrellbutler on Sept 30, 2007 22:29:23 GMT
and the away tie at Barrow has been moved to the 26th April.
|
|
|
|
Post by B*ue dragonstander on Oct 1, 2007 9:39:03 GMT
Wonkas!
The last home match of the season should be on a Saturday. Who knows it might even be the last at SGL?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim Munslow on Oct 1, 2007 17:32:37 GMT
Didn't I read that the end of the season has been brought forward by a week for the whole of the Blue Square leagues? I think this is to accommodate the play-offs. Looks as if someone somewhere got their dates muddled.
Home game on a Tuesday? Whatever next?
|
|
|
|
Post by B*ue dragonstander on Oct 1, 2007 21:43:43 GMT
Home games at Evesham!
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim Munslow on Oct 2, 2007 8:49:26 GMT
Don't joke about it! When details of the ground move are announced this Thursday it will be interesting to see just when the new ground is due to be completed, and whether this coincides with the August kick-off. Otherwise I can see us playing matches at Evesham or Bromsgrove!
|
|
|
|
Post by B*ue dragonstander on Oct 2, 2007 14:47:34 GMT
I think we will have at least a season as Gypsies at Evesham's new ground. 2008/9. With a fair wind it will be just the one season which would mean that the last home league game at the Lane will be on a Tuesday night (unless we are in the Play offs). Unbelieveable and unforgiveable! No doubt there will be final "special" match at the venue to extract a few more quids from the fans who just have to be there for the last match whatever.
City will need the cash before we can start to build our new ground. The buyer of the Lane will want vacant possession (so they can start building houses) to give us that cash. cant build houses and play footie on it at the same time in all probability.
In the time between now and the end of the season detailed planning permissions will have to be obtained to enable these works to commence. It ought to be possible in 7/8 months to the end of the season but planning applications have a hbit of being delayed. It only takes one cretinous councillor...
|
|
|
|
Post by carsten on Oct 2, 2007 15:21:21 GMT
or one councillor in the pockets of organised objectors and there will be at least two groups of those (both including the word Spetchley in their names)
|
|
|
|
Post by colinlayland on Oct 2, 2007 15:24:09 GMT
I think we will have at least a season as Gypsies at Evesham's new ground. 2008/9. With a fair wind it will be just the one season which would mean that the last home league game at the Lane will be on a Tuesday night (unless we are in the Play offs). Unbelieveable and unforgiveable! No doubt there will be final "special" match at the venue to extract a few more quids from the fans who just have to be there for the last match whatever. City will need the cash before we can start to build our new ground. The buyer of the Lane will want vacant possession (so they can start building houses) to give us that cash. cant build houses and play footie on it at the same time in all probability. In the time between now and the end of the season detailed planning permissions will have to be obtained to enable these works to commence. It ought to be possible in 7/8 months to the end of the season but planning applications have a hbit of being delayed. It only takes one cretinous councillor... No it will take a majority of cretinous councillor's,but I do not think they would like to be called deformed and mentally undeveloped. |
|
|
|
Post by colinlayland on Oct 2, 2007 15:28:58 GMT
or one councillor in the pockets of organised objectors and there will be at least two groups of those (both including the word Spetchley in their names) I SHOULD BE CAREFUL AT WHAT YOU SAY IT COULD GET YOU INTO TROUBLE. |
|
|
|
Post by carsten on Oct 2, 2007 16:32:38 GMT
I don't think so.
|
|
|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on Oct 2, 2007 21:57:16 GMT
Carsten, I wouldn't worry too much. From what I've seen of some of Worcester's ill - conceived building developments over the years, large builders ( particularly where luxury apartments, oddly placed office blocks, and all things PFI are concerned ) dictate the policy and the councillors follow meekly behind with their rubber stamps !
|
|
|
|
Post by colinlayland on Oct 3, 2007 8:26:59 GMT
Brave words hinding behind a pseudonym. |
|
|
|
Post by carsten on Oct 3, 2007 8:48:36 GMT
I know, after all the councillors could have acted strongly and continued with CLT30 instead of bowing to the pressure of the planning officers who's job is to advise only. What makes me laugh is that one well organised objecting group were then actively looking for council support for a whole load of industrial units to go up on the site.
I wonder if the whole plan would be looked upon more favourably if Worcester City Football Club registered themselves as a minority religion.
|
|
|
|
Post by colinlayland on Oct 3, 2007 9:02:05 GMT
Carsten, I wouldn't worry too much. From what I've seen of some of Worcester's ill - conceived building developments over the years, large builders ( particularly where luxury apartments, oddly placed office blocks, and all things PFI are concerned ) dictate the policy and the councillors follow meekly behind with their rubber stamps ! You have to give a very good reason to turn down a planning application. If you do not, they appeal, they win and the rate payers lose, because the council have to defend their decision. |
|
|
|
Post by carsten on Oct 3, 2007 9:44:18 GMT
So what you are saying there is that the council is afraid of turning down planning applications if the applicant has the financial clout to appeal? I would hope that decisions are made upon their merits and within a set framework and not out of fear of appeal.
|
|
|
|
Post by colinlayland on Oct 3, 2007 10:12:17 GMT
So what you are saying there is that the council is afraid of turning down planning applications if the applicant has the financial clout to appeal? I would hope that decisions are made upon their merits and within a set framework and not out of fear of appeal. No, what I am saying is that you have to have grounds to say yes or no, not 'I like that' or 'I do not like that'. |
|
|
|
Post by carsten on Oct 3, 2007 10:23:51 GMT
So the comment about appeals is superfluous and the rate payers in fact should win (regardless of appeal) as the planning applications which go through even after appeal do so to provide benefit to the ratepayers. After all, in most cases the applicant themselves is a rate payer.
So why didn't the council press on with CLT30? Didnt it have good grounds to keep saying yes?
|
|
|
|
Post by dave on Oct 3, 2007 12:12:25 GMT
Be fair to Colin, you can hardly expect him to be critical of the Council his wife and brother sit on, and a Council himself he has tried to get elected onto in recent years, can you.
I have worked in the past for Worcester City Council, and I can assure you that every Councillor I dealt with always acted with integrity and with the best interests of the people of Worcester at heart.
Carsten I think the Council have always made it very clear that they support the idea of a football stadium at Nunnery Way, it has been in the local plan for years and years. It is the enabling development that provided the stumbling block last time, and providing the club do not make the same mistakes again, planning permission should not be a problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by carsten on Oct 3, 2007 13:25:48 GMT
So just why did the Council (who have made it clear that they are in support of the football stadium) feel the need to accept all the advice of the Inspector and support the planning officer in halting CLT30? The precendence had already been set by Grimsby, the legal eagles at the City Council had approved of CLT30, the City Council did indeed have the balls to reject McNidders advice not to go ahead, but it was the City Council who were the people who finally stopped things going ahead with B&Q not the Inspector. To me that was the real lack of courage in their conviction, and I think David Hallmark echoed that too.
To quote Brian Lancaster at the time (Property Week 16.04.2004)
‘The result of the local plan inquiry was only a recommendation,’ argues Brian Lancaster, a director of Worcester City FC. ‘The local politicians of Worcester voted to have CLT30 [the proposal for football stadium and enabling development] inserted into the local plan. We see no reason why they should change their mind.’
They did change their minds.
|
|
|
|
Post by dave on Oct 3, 2007 14:00:17 GMT
To ignore the recommendations of the inspector would have been foolish in the extreme.
The objectors would have taken the matter further, and the Council will have been exposed to liability for significant costs having chosen to ignore the advice. These costs would have to have been paid for from the public purse and I for one would rather Council funds are spent on worthwhile projects rather than fighting losing battles.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony is not to despondent now. on Oct 3, 2007 16:06:50 GMT
Colin, you are fighting a losing battle with Carston. He is going to right no matter what explanation you give.
The Fixture Secretary states that the match against Boston on Tuesday 22 April will problably be on the Monday, as this is the usual day for the City to stage weekday games.
|
|
|
|
Post by carsten on Oct 3, 2007 16:49:00 GMT
I'm not right webbtony I'm not even trying to claim any kind of rightness. I just asked the question that was asked by David Hallmark amongst many others, why did the Council not follow the precendence set by Grimsby, in the same way as they quite rightly ignored the recommendations of their own Planning Officer. I am convinced that if the Council had stuck to their guns that we would be playing in a new ground next to a B&Q at Nunnery Way by now. Dave, would it have been foolish in the extreme to ignore what are only recommendations from a planning officer? Are you suggesting that David Hallmark is foolish in the extreme then for suggesting otherwise? I am so glad that we are now moving forward with the new ground, its brilliant news, but the cost to the club due the Councils change of mind over CLT30 has been substantial and could have been catastrophic. Thank goodness for the iron will of the Board of Directors and the sterling work of the likes of David Hallmark not to let this one die a death. webbtony, just to show that this has got nothing to do with me being right or wrong (not sure how someone asking a question can be right or wrong, but you seem to know better) then how about reading a bit of this archive.worcesternews.co.uk/2004/4/29/105033.htmlarchive.thisisworcestershire.co.uk/2004/4/9/115921.htmlarchive.worcesternews.co.uk/2004/4/10/115873.htmland these are 2004 articles, we've lost three years and each year represents a growth in debt of around £80,000 remember. The football club know they need the unwaivering support of the City Council in the new ground plans, but history shows that this hasn't been forthcoming. I think this time round though the club are in a far better position with the might of St. Modwen in our corner. Many other Local Authorities have been bolder in their approach to new grounds than our lot. For example this is from the website www.gtfcnewstadium.co.uk ( a website keeping the people of Grimsby informed about the developments in their new stadium) "This is yet another stadium development (Huddersfield, Swansea, Coventry, Milton Keynes and more recently Colchester United are other examples) that has been granted planning permission with an enabling development to help fund the development, despite that enabling development being contrary to normal planning policies". If only. As an aside, what is really costing the ratepayers money in Worcester is the lack of retail and leisure facilities in the City to bring in revenue to the City. This was also highlighted in the Inspectors report. So how many new hotels have been built in and around the City to bring in the leisure bucks since the Inspectors report? St. Modwen Lane, bring it on. |
|
|
|
Post by darrellbutler on Oct 3, 2007 16:58:13 GMT
Colin, you are fighting a losing battle with Carston. He is going to right no matter what explanation you give. Point Proved. |
|
|
|
Post by carsten on Oct 3, 2007 17:14:31 GMT
Darrell isn't it the club that matters at the end of the day? and £250,000 would have been a pretty handy amount for AP to use.
Sorry but I don't like councillors who will lead you to the well but take away the bucket.
Thats Dave Boddy's frustration.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim Munslow on Oct 3, 2007 17:16:01 GMT
Earlier today Carsten wrote:
Judging by attendances of late they already have!
|
|
|
|
Post by carsten on Oct 3, 2007 17:16:44 GMT
 nice one Tim |
|
|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on Oct 3, 2007 17:57:23 GMT
So councillors don't oppose plans because they might lose the appeal ! Pass me the inkpad for my rubberstamp ! I only wish that Neil Grinnall ( pre Spanish tour ) had played for the City instead of building " luxury " apartments, and we'd have had the ground years ago !
|
|
|
|
Post by darrellbutler on Oct 3, 2007 18:31:56 GMT
Sorry but I don't like councillors who will lead you to the well but take away the bucket. They are politicians, it is what 99% of them do. |
|
|
|
Post by B*ue dragonstander on Oct 3, 2007 18:47:20 GMT
My point was that it only takes one well aimed issue raised at a meeting to approve a planning permission and the approval is deferred. That is why I thought we might only arrive at the Dragons Den in 2010/11. Its just a case of history repeating ...
|
|
nice one Tim