|
|
Post by carsten on Oct 5, 2007 8:04:16 GMT
That's exactly how I read it too; aren't Miller Homes the preferred developer for SGL? The sale as yet to be signed but it cant be too far off and as I understand the developer has yet to be named (didn't Miller Homes period of exclusivity expire?, could be wrong I usually am). But rest assured the club will generate enough money from the sale of SGL and the enabling development at Nunnery Way to clear the existing debts and pay for the new stadium. I remember Wealdstone saying the same from the sale of Lower Mead to Tesco and then the Chairman taking most of the money. Not saying that this could happen but that kind assurance is folly. |
|
|
|
Post by dave on Oct 5, 2007 8:06:47 GMT
Just to p*ss Niels off some more...
All figures approximate and based on information at time...
B&Q Scheme 2004
Cost of Stadium = £6m
Costs put towards new stadium by club = £0.5m
Amount to be funded through enabling development = £5.5m
Sale of SGL = £3m
Debts to clear = £0.75m
Capital Reserve Fund £1.75m
Current Proposal
Cost of Stadium = £8m
Sale of SGL = £? but based on rise in house prices could be around £4 m- £5m
Debts to Clear = £0.9m
If therefore the Capital Reserve Fund idea were abandoned then the club would have about £4m to put towards the new stadium (50% of the value) and only £4m would need to be raised by enabling development rather than the £5.5m needed previously.
This would allow a more modest enabling development scheme to be put forward, which would be more acceptable to the Council. Also the fact that the planning system "would not be being used to prop up an ailing business by freeing the Football Club from its accumulated debt and granting it a significant endowment," may make the plans easier to swallow.
All of this is best guesswork and not based on any hard evidence coming out of the club.
I accept that yesterday was all about the triumph and fanfare of securing a significant deal with St Modwen, but when the dust settles, the club will need to be open and transparent about exactly where the money from the sale of SGL is going, and how much of the new stadium needs to be funded by enabling development.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bstander on Oct 5, 2007 8:15:44 GMT
Taken from the Worcester News website comments.
This was the chap at Thursday's meeting.
Posted by: Andrew Guy, Whittington on 8:29pm Thu 4 Oct 07
Worcester’s city councillors are unlikely to go against precedent and permit enabling development on this Greenfield site, for all the reasons that have been carefully considered by them and their predecessors. The councillors have voted against enabling development before, their planning officers have advised them against it before and it has been ruled out by two of HM Inspectors at successive public enquiries before…… What’s going to be different this time? Land around Worcester is coming under increasing development pressure. In addition to a stadium, this same strip of Greenfield land has also been suggested in various documents as a rural/green protection corridor to stem urban sprawl, suitable for employment use and ideal for residential development. It cannot support all of them! Hard decisions will have to be taken by our elected representatives as to what goes where in and around Worcester. With the Regional Spatial Strategy demanding 16,800 new houses, then this forthcoming application for a football stadium on 20 acres on Nunnery Way potentially means that 20 more acres will have to be found elsewhere – presumably on yet more Greenfield land. Worcester already has a prestige sporting 10,000 seat stadium with conference, banqueting and leisure facilities at Sixways. WCFC should establish a ground sharing agreement with WRFC. Different codes already play at plenty of other shared venues. WCFC should talk to Cecil Duckworth now and do a sensible deal. That way the people of Worcester can enjoy both football and rugby in a great stadium without losing Greenfield land and WCFC could remain financially viable. Let’s see whether all of the WCFC shareholders agree when they come to vote on the proposals for Nunnery Way. I suspect that to continue to chase the dream will put them even deeper in debt, lead to another public enquiry for which the tax-payer will have to pay and ultimately end in disappointment, again. This is not about sporting aspirations. It’s about land-use planning and safeguarding the environment for the future generations of Worcester residents. Two stadia within minutes of each other, competing for bookings to host conferences and weddings and the Saturday afternoon affections of Worcester’s sports fans? Both new-build developments on Greenfield land? Cecil, Dave, please talk to each other.
Worcester’s city councillors are unlikely to go against precedent and permit enabling development on this Greenfield site, for all the reasons that have been carefully considered by them and their predecessors. The councillors have voted against enabling development before, their planning officers have advised them against it before and it has been ruled out by two of HM Inspectors at successive public enquiries before…… What’s going to be different this time?
Land around Worcester is coming under increasing development pressure. In addition to a stadium, this same strip of Greenfield land has also been suggested in various documents as a rural/green protection corridor to stem urban sprawl, suitable for employment use and ideal for residential development. It cannot support all of them! Hard decisions will have to be taken by our elected representatives as to what goes where in and around Worcester. With the Regional Spatial Strategy demanding 16,800 new houses, then this forthcoming application for a football stadium on 20 acres on Nunnery Way potentially means that 20 more acres will have to be found elsewhere – presumably on yet more Greenfield land.
Worcester already has a prestige sporting 10,000 seat stadium with conference, banqueting and leisure facilities at Sixways. WCFC should establish a ground sharing agreement with WRFC. Different codes already play at plenty of other shared venues. WCFC should talk to Cecil Duckworth now and do a sensible deal. That way the people of Worcester can enjoy both football and rugby in a great stadium without losing Greenfield land and WCFC could remain financially viable.
Let’s see whether all of the WCFC shareholders agree when they come to vote on the proposals for Nunnery Way. I suspect that to continue to chase the dream will put them even deeper in debt, lead to another public enquiry for which the tax-payer will have to pay and ultimately end in disappointment, again.
This is not about sporting aspirations. It’s about land-use planning and safeguarding the environment for the future generations of Worcester residents.
Two stadia within minutes of each other, competing for bookings to host conferences and weddings and the Saturday afternoon affections of Worcester’s sports fans? Both new-build developments on Greenfield land? Cecil, Dave, please talk to each other.
|
|
|
|
Post by carsten on Oct 5, 2007 8:18:52 GMT
Clearly this chap has no understanding of Primacy of Tenure. Cecil and Dave could talk to each other as much as they like, but the RFU changed their rules to stop all their Premier clubs moving in to share football grounds. It can't happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by carsten on Oct 5, 2007 8:30:32 GMT
Just to p*ss Niels off some more... All figures approximate and based on information at time... B&Q Scheme 2004Cost of Stadium = £6m Costs put towards new stadium by club = £0.5m Amount to be funded through enabling development = £5.5m Sale of SGL = £3m Debts to clear = £0.75m Capital Reserve Fund £1.75m Current ProposalCost of Stadium = £8m Sale of SGL = £? but based on rise in house prices could be around £4 m- £5m Debts to Clear = £0.9m If therefore the Capital Reserve Fund idea were abandoned then the club would have about £4m to put towards the new stadium (50% of the value) and only £4m would need to be raised by enabling development rather than the £5.5m needed previously. This would allow a more modest enabling development scheme to be put forward, which would be more acceptable to the Council. Also the fact that the planning system "would not be being used to prop up an ailing business by freeing the Football Club from its accumulated debt and granting it a significant endowment," may make the plans easier to swallow. All of this is best guesswork and not based on any hard evidence coming out of the club. I accept that yesterday was all about the triumph and fanfare of securing a significant deal with St Modwen, but when the dust settles, the club will need to be open and transparent about exactly where the money from the sale of SGL is going, and how much of the new stadium needs to be funded by enabling development. Dave you havent included possible grants from the likes of the football foundation, sports England, Awards for all, foundation for Sports and Art, National Lottery and probably some private funding as well. |
|
|
|
Post by B*ue dragonstander on Oct 5, 2007 8:37:59 GMT
Or maybe a night club pumping out bass and drunks all night long? Bass is quite a decent beer... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2007 8:43:16 GMT
BDS, after this month's draw result I assume you'll be buying the first round of tea at the new ground?
|
|
|
|
Post by dave on Oct 5, 2007 8:44:06 GMT
Dave you havent included possible grants from the likes of the football foundation, sports England, Awards for all, foundation for Sports and Art, National Lottery and probably some private funding as well. You are quite right, the gap could be smaller still. If they wanted to pay us £2m for ten years of sponsorship, I would be happy to see us run out at the Tampax Tampons Stadium. |
|
|
|
Post by B*ue dragonstander on Oct 5, 2007 8:45:25 GMT
I am recycling the money. There will not be enough change for the £3 cup of tea and £8 bacon roll at the new Brookside
|
|
|
|
Post by carsten on Oct 5, 2007 9:29:16 GMT
Isn't the timing fantastic on this? The Whittington NIMBYS are already bust fighting the waste disposal site, and the City Council are hardly gonig to be up for drawn out planning appeals with a £1.6 million budget deficit. It looks like we are in bed with a partner who knows just how to play the game.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2007 10:03:59 GMT
I know we're all biased on here, but would you rather have another 400 or so more houses on your road or a stadium that's used now and then?
|
|
niels
City Legend
Posts: 1,741
|
Post by niels on Oct 5, 2007 10:21:58 GMT
Just to p*ss Niels off some more... Dave it's not that you particularly piss me off but you have sounded like a broken record for the past couple of years asking questions that we have no chance of answering, or assuring you on, because we don't know. Only the board know, so ask them. They will tell you if they want you to know. |
|
|
|
Post by carsten on Oct 5, 2007 11:08:31 GMT
Well said Nielsy, I like the way people talk about such a move as if its all being done in cash You know, a house builder gives us £9 million in suitcases, and then we give £8 million of it to St Modwens etc. Its far more complex than that, and I would imagine that some form of holding company of even a number of companies will be set up to manage the funding, ownership and management of the ground. to give you an idea there are 4 companies which include the name Worcester Rugby Club, three of which have company addresses at Sixways, and a further 3 including the name of WRFC. Its a complex picture.
|
|
dg
Youth Teamer
Posts: 47
|
Post by dg on Oct 5, 2007 11:37:31 GMT
I am recycling the money. There will not be enough change for the £3 cup of tea and £8 bacon roll at the new Brookside I hope the catering will in future be kept in house, not given away for a pittance, that would be a start. |
|
|
|
Post by creaner on Oct 5, 2007 12:06:48 GMT
This is from Paul O'Connor (Planning Manager, Worcester City Council) on the councils future "Joint Core Strategy"
"SO DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE JOINT CORE STRATEGY IS?
Worcester City, Malvern Hills and Wychavon District Councils have teamed up to produce a strategic planning document for the next 20 years that will cover the issues arising in South Worcestershire until 2026.
It is expected that the final document, the Joint Core Strategy, will be adopted as policy in early 2010 and by the following Spring there will be specific documents that allocate sites for development.
That seems some way off now, but between now and Christmas we all have the opportunity to make our views known regarding the way South Worcestershire can be shaped with the growth that will come.
The three Councils are publishing their Issues & Options Report, the first stage in the process towards the Joint Core Strategy. It will be the subject of public consultation from 1 November to Christmas. It is not the blue print for future development, it doesn’t identify sites for growth and it certainly doesn’t tell people how growth will be accommodated.
It asks people for their views on how growth can be accommodated and will give a guide as to how the answers to the questions could have an impact on the future sustainability of South Worcestershire.
That’s right, growth for South Worcestershire. If your view is that there should be no growth, then unfortunately you will be whistling in the wind. The Joint Core Strategy has to formulate its policies based upon the needs for South Worcestershire in the context of national and regional planning. We know that there is planned growth nationally and regionally and South Worcestershire will take its share.
So you are asked for your views on how that growth can be achieved. Look out for the questionnaire on the Issues & Options Report. It will be available from a number of sources, such as your local Council, your elected members, the Joint Core Strategy website (www.swjcs.org), your local newspaper and radio, in residents’ magazines and at various events that will be happening around the area for six weeks in November and December.
People will be available to help you fill out the questionnaire as otherwise you might be daunted by it. Planners haven’t deliberately written so many questions that you will be overawed by the process or get bored. No, this is the process that has to be gone through and we all have to do our bit if we are to help shape the way South Worcestershire develops from here.
So have you a view on how Worcester should grow, what the future of the Green Belt is, what infrastructure is required, how much and where employment land should be, the future for open space, the way our villages should grow, the future role of public transport or the implications on development of flooding?
I bet you have, so why not let the Joint Core Strategy team know your views when the questionnaire appears in the near future.
Paul O’Connor
Planning Manager – Worcester City Council"
Should be a good opportunity for those on both sides to make representations on planning strategy for the near future. Make sure you have your say if you want your voice to be heard!
|
|
|
|
Post by carsten on Oct 5, 2007 12:18:04 GMT
Sounds like a great excuse for more Local Government intertia.
|
|
|
|
Post by StopfordianWCFC on Oct 5, 2007 12:37:59 GMT
This is from Paul O'Connor (Planning Manager, Worcester City Council) on the councils future "Joint Core Strategy" "SO DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE JOINT CORE STRATEGY IS? In other words, Wychavon and Worcester City (Council) have been asked to accomodate masses of new housing (and related employment growth). Its got to go somewhere so don't all start whinging when it ends up in your back yard! As I've said before, Worcester and Wychavon are viewed by regional and central government as major growth points. In some respects you can forget the old Local Plan and the old green belt. Its all going to be up for grabs..... our stadium is located in a prime site and St Modwens know that. They can piggy back on the local interest and the club can finally get what they want.... |
|
|
|
Post by creaner on Oct 5, 2007 12:44:22 GMT
The phrase that stands out for me is
"If your view is that there should be no growth, then unfortunately you will be whistling in the wind. "
It's gonna happen as Mancunian wcfc says, question is what and where?
|
|
niels
City Legend
Posts: 1,741
|
Post by niels on Oct 5, 2007 15:37:35 GMT
Finally, well done to Mike Foster MP who made the most sense by insisting that the status of Worcester will raised by the city having a Football League club and this move will help pave the way. Presumably the Tory candidate was too busy counting his Michael Ashcroft cash to bother to attend...after all football is only the national game. Where as I would be the last person on earth to defend a conservative politician wasn't there a Tory piss-up on somewhere up North. |
|
|
|
Post by colinlayland on Oct 5, 2007 18:46:15 GMT
Finally, well done to Mike Foster MP who made the most sense by insisting that the status of Worcester will raised by the city having a Football League club and this move will help pave the way. Presumably the Tory candidate was too busy counting his Michael Ashcroft cash to bother to attend...after all football is only the national game. Where as I would be the last person on earth to defend a conservative politician wasn't there a Tory piss-up on somewhere up North. Or maybe the tory candidate was not invited, and Mike Foster thinks there is going to be a General Election? |
|
|
|
Post by blackpole on Oct 5, 2007 19:05:37 GMT
I hope the catering will in future be kept in house, not given away for a pittance, that would be a start. in pure english terms does that mean that not only will we advertise Pukka Pies, we'll sell them as well!? |
|
|
|
Post by carsten on Oct 5, 2007 19:06:52 GMT
Have the Tories got a candidate for Worcester yet?
|
|
|
|
Post by colinlayland on Oct 5, 2007 19:19:10 GMT
Have the Tories got a candidate for Worcester yet? Robin Walker,Peter Walkers son. |
|
|
|
Post by carsten on Oct 5, 2007 19:21:15 GMT
At least they've now got someone with a Worcester connection. Decent bloke Peter Walker.
|
|
|
|
Post by creaner on Oct 5, 2007 19:44:10 GMT
At least they've now got someone with a Worcester connection. Decent bloke Peter Walker. Just don't ask him to park your car for you. |
|
|
|
Post by carsten on Oct 5, 2007 19:46:27 GMT
;D
|
|
salmon
Reserve Teamer
Posts: 52
|
Post by salmon on Oct 5, 2007 21:57:43 GMT
It has been mentioned that there will be only 2000 seats, what has happened to the proposed 6000 all seated stadium?, I thought that league status requirements ment you needed your ground to be an all seater.
|
|
|
|
Post by blackpole on Oct 6, 2007 0:05:50 GMT
that's only for the premiership - let's get to conf national 1st
|
|
|
|
Post by carsten on Oct 6, 2007 7:30:16 GMT
I always thought that the '6,000 seater' was a figment of the presses imagination, and used by objectors to convey a huge unecessary stadium. I think it was reported like this once and people cottoned on to it. My understanding was that it was a ground with a capacity of 6,000 and some of those will obviously be seats and 2,000 seats in a modern stadium doesnt look that many.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2007 8:51:43 GMT
Is there any mention anywhere about training facilities e.g. a practice pitch to take some of the strain off the main one?
|
|
