Residents fight plans for new Worcester City stadium in Perdiswell

John Anyon        4/4/14       1414565101Drovers Way resident, Lesley Mettrick with her petition against  the development on Perdiswell playing fields, the proposed new site for Worcester City FC, by residents of the nearby Astwood Farm Estate (5162861)

John Anyon 4/4/14 1414565101Drovers Way resident, Lesley Mettrick with her petition against the development on Perdiswell playing fields, the proposed new site for Worcester City FC, by residents of the nearby Astwood Farm Estate (5162861)

First published in News
Last updated
Worcester News: Tom Edwards by , Political Reporter

ANGRY residents in Worcester have launched a shock petition against plans for the city's football club to come to Perdiswell - saying they are being driven "mad" by rising congestion.

People living around Drovers Way, near Bilford Road, say there is mounting concern over all the new developments in the area.

They say they are not against Worcester City FC coming back - but projects like the new planned Lidl on the Archdales site in Warndon, the Marks & Spencer set for Elgar Retail Park and housing development in areas like Claines could make congestion intolerable.

In the last two days 70 people have already lined up to sign the petition due to fears the proposed new stadium will add to the congestion.

Worcester City has been marooned in Kidderminster since the start of this season, playing at Aggborough after moving out of St George's Lane.

The club's supporters trust is submitting a planning application to the city council in just 11 days time (April 16) for a £2.1 million, 4,130 capacity stadium at Perdiswell next to the existing leisure centre.

Resident Lesley Mettrick, of Drovers Way, who has launched the petition, said: "I felt like I had to do this, there are so many issues around congestion around here.

"It feels like we are suddenly having all these new developments, but where will all the cars go?

"We've got the new M&S, which is lovely as I'm a big Marks & Spencer fan, but that will increase congestion.

"The Lidl at Archdales will increase congestion. Then we've got this football stadium.

"It will be a traffic nightmare. We will have to suffer from all these cars - getting across Bilford Road is a nightmare anyway.

"To be honest we're frightened about what it'll do to house prices. It feels like we're being squeezed, it's madness."

Fellow resident Kevin Hunt, 51, a taxi driver of Ryeland Close said: "I want to see Worcester City FC home, but is this really the right site for it?

"I don't think it is. Surely there has to be somewhere better, with less traffic problems."

The club's supporters trust says it welcomes a debate around parking, and that it is working on ways to ease traffic.

There will be some on-site parking, although the trust has not revealed how much yet, and the site is well served by an existing park and ride and bus route.

Rob Crean, trust secretary said: "Once we've submitted it everyone will get the chance to write in with any objections.

"We welcome the debate and are confident any concerns people have can be addressed."

He said the trust was hopeful it can use nearby school car parks, like Tudor Grange Academy, to also help the situation.

Councillor Neil Laurenson said: "We certainly support good leisure facilities that can be used by residents throughout the city and would also like to see Worcester City playing football in Worcester again.

"However, the many concerns of residents will need to be addressed."

The plans will include one main 500-seat stand, a standing terrace, 3G pitch, three full-size grass pitches, two nine aside fields, conference and classroom facilities.

To sign the petition call Mrs Mettrick on 07792 290863.

Comments (49)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:20pm Mon 7 Apr 14

brooksider says...

HaHa, Lesley Merrick organises a petition against the Football Stadium but not against Lidl and Marks and Spencers who will cause much more congestion than a football club.
Good to see nimbyism is alive and well in Drovers Way as well as Claines.
HaHa, Lesley Merrick organises a petition against the Football Stadium but not against Lidl and Marks and Spencers who will cause much more congestion than a football club. Good to see nimbyism is alive and well in Drovers Way as well as Claines. brooksider
  • Score: -5

12:36pm Mon 7 Apr 14

SazB says...

Worcester City play once a week (maybe two depending on fixtures) with an average crowd of around 450 - 500, hardly going to cause any major congestion!

Will there ever be a right location for the ground? Give the Club a chance, I've been following them for nearly 20 years and was gutted when SGL got knocked down. It'll be nice to have a ground back in the City where it belongs, instead of having to travel to Kidderminster for our 'home' matches.
Worcester City play once a week (maybe two depending on fixtures) with an average crowd of around 450 - 500, hardly going to cause any major congestion! Will there ever be a right location for the ground? Give the Club a chance, I've been following them for nearly 20 years and was gutted when SGL got knocked down. It'll be nice to have a ground back in the City where it belongs, instead of having to travel to Kidderminster for our 'home' matches. SazB
  • Score: -10

12:52pm Mon 7 Apr 14

wuster says...

Is this scheme proposed by Worcester City FC or Worcester City FC Supporters' Trust ?
Are either of the organisations capable of providing the funds for a 4,000+ capacity stadium or will the scheme be funded by the local council/Lottery/Foot
ball funding?

Is there also a swimming facility planned for this site?
Is this scheme proposed by Worcester City FC or Worcester City FC Supporters' Trust ? Are either of the organisations capable of providing the funds for a 4,000+ capacity stadium or will the scheme be funded by the local council/Lottery/Foot ball funding? Is there also a swimming facility planned for this site? wuster
  • Score: 1

1:06pm Mon 7 Apr 14

Handcart says...

Yes, there could be a pool on this site. A genuine community resource.

The success of this stadium idea is dependent on the Worcester City games and anything else they host there being FAR better attended. If this works, it's a nightmare. If it fails, it's a white elephant.

We need to protect our parkland. Worcester is not blessed with many open spaces that can be shared by footballing kids, whippet racers, dog walkers, land-kiters, joggers, picnikers and anyone else.

Join the campaign to Protect Perdiswell Park - facebook.com/Protect
Perdiswell
Yes, there could be a pool on this site. A genuine community resource. The success of this stadium idea is dependent on the Worcester City games and anything else they host there being FAR better attended. If this works, it's a nightmare. If it fails, it's a white elephant. We need to protect our parkland. Worcester is not blessed with many open spaces that can be shared by footballing kids, whippet racers, dog walkers, land-kiters, joggers, picnikers and anyone else. Join the campaign to Protect Perdiswell Park - facebook.com/Protect Perdiswell Handcart
  • Score: 18

1:08pm Mon 7 Apr 14

CityBlueBoy says...

As Saz says above at most used 30 times a year.

Plus would it not have been better for the petition to be put together once the plans for both the Football Club and Swimming Pool have both gone in ?

In fact why hasnt the Swimming Pool even been mentioned in this piece ??

How do these people know that the road structure hasnt been changed in the plans to help ease congestion ?
As Saz says above at most used 30 times a year. Plus would it not have been better for the petition to be put together once the plans for both the Football Club and Swimming Pool have both gone in ? In fact why hasnt the Swimming Pool even been mentioned in this piece ?? How do these people know that the road structure hasnt been changed in the plans to help ease congestion ? CityBlueBoy
  • Score: -22

1:24pm Mon 7 Apr 14

wuster says...

Is the football ground & swimming facility a joint proposal or two separate proposals?

Either/or Who's paying ?
Is the football ground & swimming facility a joint proposal or two separate proposals? Either/or Who's paying ? wuster
  • Score: 4

2:25pm Mon 7 Apr 14

Handcart says...

At present, a loan from central government is being proposed, to pay for a swimming pool (see previous reports on this site). That will pay for a scaled down 'annexe' to the current Leisure Centre. This whole notion is not yet backed by the Council, so cannot be planned any further.

And who is paying for the stadium? Well the land would be leased or gifted by the Council I presume - cheap or free? That, to me, is why building over existing parkland like Perdiswell has even come up. The Supporters Trust website says that the club will have an unknown amount of cash leftover from the sale of St Georges Lane and the to-in and fro-ing about the other site. Who knows if they want to put this on the table for the Supporters' plans? Plus they hope to issue a Community Share so that me and you and everyone else can own a bit of it. That's a nice idea, and a calling it a 'Community Sports Hub' - while St Johns is struggling to get numbers in? Nice dreams, but dreams nonetheless...
At present, a loan from central government is being proposed, to pay for a swimming pool (see previous reports on this site). That will pay for a scaled down 'annexe' to the current Leisure Centre. This whole notion is not yet backed by the Council, so cannot be planned any further. And who is paying for the stadium? Well the land would be leased or gifted by the Council I presume - cheap or free? That, to me, is why building over existing parkland like Perdiswell has even come up. The Supporters Trust website says that the club will have an unknown amount of cash leftover from the sale of St Georges Lane and the to-in and fro-ing about the other site. Who knows if they want to put this on the table for the Supporters' plans? Plus they hope to issue a Community Share so that me and you and everyone else can own a bit of it. That's a nice idea, and a calling it a 'Community Sports Hub' - while St Johns is struggling to get numbers in? Nice dreams, but dreams nonetheless... Handcart
  • Score: 32

2:52pm Mon 7 Apr 14

tinateabg says...

Please can i have access to the petition, so i can sign it, and am willing to get other people to sign it too, if they want to.
Please can i have access to the petition, so i can sign it, and am willing to get other people to sign it too, if they want to. tinateabg
  • Score: 9

3:11pm Mon 7 Apr 14

SensibleWorcesterFan says...

This is a ridiculous idea to put a massive (yes, full size) stadium on such a beautiful, community-friendly piece of land. Yet another waste of taxpayers' money - not all taxpayers are football fans. If the club hadn't managed to lose so much money over the last few years they could have gone through with the sensible agreed location at Nunnery without any assistance. If they manage any more ineptitude then the landscape will be blotted forever and a white elephant will be left as a reminder.
The entrance to M&S is on Blackpole Road, some way away and this shouldn't add to congestion in the Bilford Road area. One reason people are more open to the LIDL development is that they organised a good consultation event rather than the farce that was carried out last year by the supporters (eg: comment forms were hidden under a pile of magazines and there was nowhere to place them). It's been very difficult to find out exactly what their plans are which doesn't foster good relations or confidence.
Yes, bring the football club home but be realistic and honest about what the effects will be for those people living nearby - Worcester Warriors have parking yet the Worcester News has previously reported about the dangerous parking chaos in the vicinity of Sixways on match days. Perdiswell is simply the wrong place for the club.
This is a ridiculous idea to put a massive (yes, full size) stadium on such a beautiful, community-friendly piece of land. Yet another waste of taxpayers' money - not all taxpayers are football fans. If the club hadn't managed to lose so much money over the last few years they could have gone through with the sensible agreed location at Nunnery without any assistance. If they manage any more ineptitude then the landscape will be blotted forever and a white elephant will be left as a reminder. The entrance to M&S is on Blackpole Road, some way away and this shouldn't add to congestion in the Bilford Road area. One reason people are more open to the LIDL development is that they organised a good consultation event rather than the farce that was carried out last year by the supporters (eg: comment forms were hidden under a pile of magazines and there was nowhere to place them). It's been very difficult to find out exactly what their plans are which doesn't foster good relations or confidence. Yes, bring the football club home but be realistic and honest about what the effects will be for those people living nearby - Worcester Warriors have parking yet the Worcester News has previously reported about the dangerous parking chaos in the vicinity of Sixways on match days. Perdiswell is simply the wrong place for the club. SensibleWorcesterFan
  • Score: 25

3:17pm Mon 7 Apr 14

Handcart says...

tinateabg wrote:
Please can i have access to the petition, so i can sign it, and am willing to get other people to sign it too, if they want to.
The number to call is at the end of the article.
[quote][p][bold]tinateabg[/bold] wrote: Please can i have access to the petition, so i can sign it, and am willing to get other people to sign it too, if they want to.[/p][/quote]The number to call is at the end of the article. Handcart
  • Score: 28

3:19pm Mon 7 Apr 14

Handcart says...

SensibleWorcesterFan wrote:
This is a ridiculous idea to put a massive (yes, full size) stadium on such a beautiful, community-friendly piece of land. Yet another waste of taxpayers' money - not all taxpayers are football fans. If the club hadn't managed to lose so much money over the last few years they could have gone through with the sensible agreed location at Nunnery without any assistance. If they manage any more ineptitude then the landscape will be blotted forever and a white elephant will be left as a reminder.
The entrance to M&S is on Blackpole Road, some way away and this shouldn't add to congestion in the Bilford Road area. One reason people are more open to the LIDL development is that they organised a good consultation event rather than the farce that was carried out last year by the supporters (eg: comment forms were hidden under a pile of magazines and there was nowhere to place them). It's been very difficult to find out exactly what their plans are which doesn't foster good relations or confidence.
Yes, bring the football club home but be realistic and honest about what the effects will be for those people living nearby - Worcester Warriors have parking yet the Worcester News has previously reported about the dangerous parking chaos in the vicinity of Sixways on match days. Perdiswell is simply the wrong place for the club.
Thank you, SensibleWorcesterFan for showing that it not NIMBYs v Football.
[quote][p][bold]SensibleWorcesterFan[/bold] wrote: This is a ridiculous idea to put a massive (yes, full size) stadium on such a beautiful, community-friendly piece of land. Yet another waste of taxpayers' money - not all taxpayers are football fans. If the club hadn't managed to lose so much money over the last few years they could have gone through with the sensible agreed location at Nunnery without any assistance. If they manage any more ineptitude then the landscape will be blotted forever and a white elephant will be left as a reminder. The entrance to M&S is on Blackpole Road, some way away and this shouldn't add to congestion in the Bilford Road area. One reason people are more open to the LIDL development is that they organised a good consultation event rather than the farce that was carried out last year by the supporters (eg: comment forms were hidden under a pile of magazines and there was nowhere to place them). It's been very difficult to find out exactly what their plans are which doesn't foster good relations or confidence. Yes, bring the football club home but be realistic and honest about what the effects will be for those people living nearby - Worcester Warriors have parking yet the Worcester News has previously reported about the dangerous parking chaos in the vicinity of Sixways on match days. Perdiswell is simply the wrong place for the club.[/p][/quote]Thank you, SensibleWorcesterFan for showing that it not NIMBYs v Football. Handcart
  • Score: 31

3:43pm Mon 7 Apr 14

r-goode says...

I have been a fan of WCFC for almost 20 years and am fully behind not only the Perdiswell plans, but also everything the WCFCST propose. However, personal reasons aside, this is an extremely poor argument for a number of reasons.

1) Mrs Mettrick claims the biggest issue would be congestion. As previously mentioned WCFC would play approximately 25/30 games there per season (including friendlies, league and cup games), with an average attendance for league and cup of somewhere in the region of 700
2) I assume that prior to organising this petition Mrs Mettrick would have fully read the planning application or visited the presentation that WCFCST put on at Perdiswell Sports Centre? If so then I also assume that when asking for people to sign the petition, she will have informed everybody of the proposed community stadium plans and also of the benefits to the community that it would bring?
3) This article mentions that 70 people have currently signed the petition, I for one would be extremely interested in finding out how many people refused to sign it? If you average 2 people per household that was asked, then it is only 35 houses that agreed and signed it. Surely more doors were knocked on than 35 before approaching the press?
4) This article also mentions Lidls new proposed developments on Archdales. I am not fully aware of the facts regarding this, although can only assume the Lidl over the road will be/has been bought out by another business? I would be interested in knowing why residents who are against congestion issues do not feel there is an issue with a Lidl store to be placed right beside Sainsburys? Both of these stores will be open 7 days a week and would create a huge amount more congestion than a community based football stadium surely?
5) As Rob Crean from has stated, WCFCST are working towards securing parking solutions to aid any form of congestion that may occur. This has been documented throughout the process and is not something that has been overlooked.
6) Lastly Mrs Mettrick states “we’ve got the new M&S, which is lovely as I’m a big Marks & Spencer fan”. This is an absolute non-argument. As long as she’s happy with the stores there then that’s great? How are a community of sports and leisure people going to make any use of a M&S?

It is time for everybody to get behind the Supporters Trust and back their proposals. A city as big as Worcester, which is renowned for its participation in a number of sports, without a football club would be terrible. Now is the time to support it and not scrutinise things that people are working tirelessly to resolve.
I have been a fan of WCFC for almost 20 years and am fully behind not only the Perdiswell plans, but also everything the WCFCST propose. However, personal reasons aside, this is an extremely poor argument for a number of reasons. 1) Mrs Mettrick claims the biggest issue would be congestion. As previously mentioned WCFC would play approximately 25/30 games there per season (including friendlies, league and cup games), with an average attendance for league and cup of somewhere in the region of 700 2) I assume that prior to organising this petition Mrs Mettrick would have fully read the planning application or visited the presentation that WCFCST put on at Perdiswell Sports Centre? If so then I also assume that when asking for people to sign the petition, she will have informed everybody of the proposed community stadium plans and also of the benefits to the community that it would bring? 3) This article mentions that 70 people have currently signed the petition, I for one would be extremely interested in finding out how many people refused to sign it? If you average 2 people per household that was asked, then it is only 35 houses that agreed and signed it. Surely more doors were knocked on than 35 before approaching the press? 4) This article also mentions Lidls new proposed developments on Archdales. I am not fully aware of the facts regarding this, although can only assume the Lidl over the road will be/has been bought out by another business? I would be interested in knowing why residents who are against congestion issues do not feel there is an issue with a Lidl store to be placed right beside Sainsburys? Both of these stores will be open 7 days a week and would create a huge amount more congestion than a community based football stadium surely? 5) As Rob Crean from has stated, WCFCST are working towards securing parking solutions to aid any form of congestion that may occur. This has been documented throughout the process and is not something that has been overlooked. 6) Lastly Mrs Mettrick states “we’ve got the new M&S, which is lovely as I’m a big Marks & Spencer fan”. This is an absolute non-argument. As long as she’s happy with the stores there then that’s great? How are a community of sports and leisure people going to make any use of a M&S? It is time for everybody to get behind the Supporters Trust and back their proposals. A city as big as Worcester, which is renowned for its participation in a number of sports, without a football club would be terrible. Now is the time to support it and not scrutinise things that people are working tirelessly to resolve. r-goode
  • Score: -6

4:39pm Mon 7 Apr 14

CityBlueBoy says...

SensibleWorcesterFan wrote:
This is a ridiculous idea to put a massive (yes, full size) stadium on such a beautiful, community-friendly piece of land. Yet another waste of taxpayers' money - not all taxpayers are football fans. If the club hadn't managed to lose so much money over the last few years they could have gone through with the sensible agreed location at Nunnery without any assistance. If they manage any more ineptitude then the landscape will be blotted forever and a white elephant will be left as a reminder.
The entrance to M&S is on Blackpole Road, some way away and this shouldn't add to congestion in the Bilford Road area. One reason people are more open to the LIDL development is that they organised a good consultation event rather than the farce that was carried out last year by the supporters (eg: comment forms were hidden under a pile of magazines and there was nowhere to place them). It's been very difficult to find out exactly what their plans are which doesn't foster good relations or confidence.
Yes, bring the football club home but be realistic and honest about what the effects will be for those people living nearby - Worcester Warriors have parking yet the Worcester News has previously reported about the dangerous parking chaos in the vicinity of Sixways on match days. Perdiswell is simply the wrong place for the club.
Thats a clueless statement straight away !
[quote][p][bold]SensibleWorcesterFan[/bold] wrote: This is a ridiculous idea to put a massive (yes, full size) stadium on such a beautiful, community-friendly piece of land. Yet another waste of taxpayers' money - not all taxpayers are football fans. If the club hadn't managed to lose so much money over the last few years they could have gone through with the sensible agreed location at Nunnery without any assistance. If they manage any more ineptitude then the landscape will be blotted forever and a white elephant will be left as a reminder. The entrance to M&S is on Blackpole Road, some way away and this shouldn't add to congestion in the Bilford Road area. One reason people are more open to the LIDL development is that they organised a good consultation event rather than the farce that was carried out last year by the supporters (eg: comment forms were hidden under a pile of magazines and there was nowhere to place them). It's been very difficult to find out exactly what their plans are which doesn't foster good relations or confidence. Yes, bring the football club home but be realistic and honest about what the effects will be for those people living nearby - Worcester Warriors have parking yet the Worcester News has previously reported about the dangerous parking chaos in the vicinity of Sixways on match days. Perdiswell is simply the wrong place for the club.[/p][/quote]Thats a clueless statement straight away ! CityBlueBoy
  • Score: -23

4:54pm Mon 7 Apr 14

old misery says...

Think back to when they were going to close Cripplegate Park there was a petition signed by 8000 people I walk through there regularly still along way off of seeing the 8,000 folks.
Think back to when they were going to close Cripplegate Park there was a petition signed by 8000 people I walk through there regularly still along way off of seeing the 8,000 folks. old misery
  • Score: 0

5:54pm Mon 7 Apr 14

Handcart says...

r-goode wrote:
I have been a fan of WCFC for almost 20 years and am fully behind not only the Perdiswell plans, but also everything the WCFCST propose. However, personal reasons aside, this is an extremely poor argument for a number of reasons.

1) Mrs Mettrick claims the biggest issue would be congestion. As previously mentioned WCFC would play approximately 25/30 games there per season (including friendlies, league and cup games), with an average attendance for league and cup of somewhere in the region of 700
2) I assume that prior to organising this petition Mrs Mettrick would have fully read the planning application or visited the presentation that WCFCST put on at Perdiswell Sports Centre? If so then I also assume that when asking for people to sign the petition, she will have informed everybody of the proposed community stadium plans and also of the benefits to the community that it would bring?
3) This article mentions that 70 people have currently signed the petition, I for one would be extremely interested in finding out how many people refused to sign it? If you average 2 people per household that was asked, then it is only 35 houses that agreed and signed it. Surely more doors were knocked on than 35 before approaching the press?
4) This article also mentions Lidls new proposed developments on Archdales. I am not fully aware of the facts regarding this, although can only assume the Lidl over the road will be/has been bought out by another business? I would be interested in knowing why residents who are against congestion issues do not feel there is an issue with a Lidl store to be placed right beside Sainsburys? Both of these stores will be open 7 days a week and would create a huge amount more congestion than a community based football stadium surely?
5) As Rob Crean from has stated, WCFCST are working towards securing parking solutions to aid any form of congestion that may occur. This has been documented throughout the process and is not something that has been overlooked.
6) Lastly Mrs Mettrick states “we’ve got the new M&S, which is lovely as I’m a big Marks & Spencer fan”. This is an absolute non-argument. As long as she’s happy with the stores there then that’s great? How are a community of sports and leisure people going to make any use of a M&S?

It is time for everybody to get behind the Supporters Trust and back their proposals. A city as big as Worcester, which is renowned for its participation in a number of sports, without a football club would be terrible. Now is the time to support it and not scrutinise things that people are working tirelessly to resolve.
Good to see someone is prepared to enter in to a proper debate.
Surely low turnouts like 700 will be a disaster? The fans' website hopes the stadium will have "Capacity of 4130 persons with possibility to increase to 5540 if tiered terraces are utilised to include a 500 covered seated stand and 2x 130 covered terraced stand" and "Other terracing is to be open plan but will enable us to expand and put in more covered areas in the future. Surely the hope is bigger and better crowds? We await parking solutions to address this.

Petitioning is not an exact science. As a rough idea, I have spoken to 25 households, had one person in favour, 4 undecided and about 35 people have signed. Mostly people say the road is not sufficient to have such a major venue and the dump approach needs sorting out but has not been. Does not inspire confidence in altering the highways to suit.

The article announces that a peition is being carried out. It's a bit early to write it off. I think the number of streets petitioned will be small, so it will be easy to see what proportion of objectors will be.

I don't think Mrs Mettrick was asked to put a killer point to the reporter when she said she like M+S! What is clear is that she is not saying 'stop developing things in our neighbourhood'. Like many people I have spoken to, it's not building (like a swimming pool) and change that we worry about, it's large scale scheduled events. 700 - 5000 people do not go shopping in the same place at the same time (once the opening event hype has died down, anyway).

I have to disagree with the idea of scrutiny being bad. This is part of people having a say, participation, dare I say, democracy?! Within reason we will scrutinise, pick over and pick apart the plans, and maybe the answers you come up with will make your case stronger next time? There's an awful lot of questions about who will pay for the roadworks, pedestrian crossings, heaven knows what else - things that are not even your responsibility - when you don't know just yet that you've enough money for the goalposts.

I appreciate that a lot of time is going in to this, and I don't doubt the determination. Surely respecting those with opposing views does not mean keeping quiet?
[quote][p][bold]r-goode[/bold] wrote: I have been a fan of WCFC for almost 20 years and am fully behind not only the Perdiswell plans, but also everything the WCFCST propose. However, personal reasons aside, this is an extremely poor argument for a number of reasons. 1) Mrs Mettrick claims the biggest issue would be congestion. As previously mentioned WCFC would play approximately 25/30 games there per season (including friendlies, league and cup games), with an average attendance for league and cup of somewhere in the region of 700 2) I assume that prior to organising this petition Mrs Mettrick would have fully read the planning application or visited the presentation that WCFCST put on at Perdiswell Sports Centre? If so then I also assume that when asking for people to sign the petition, she will have informed everybody of the proposed community stadium plans and also of the benefits to the community that it would bring? 3) This article mentions that 70 people have currently signed the petition, I for one would be extremely interested in finding out how many people refused to sign it? If you average 2 people per household that was asked, then it is only 35 houses that agreed and signed it. Surely more doors were knocked on than 35 before approaching the press? 4) This article also mentions Lidls new proposed developments on Archdales. I am not fully aware of the facts regarding this, although can only assume the Lidl over the road will be/has been bought out by another business? I would be interested in knowing why residents who are against congestion issues do not feel there is an issue with a Lidl store to be placed right beside Sainsburys? Both of these stores will be open 7 days a week and would create a huge amount more congestion than a community based football stadium surely? 5) As Rob Crean from has stated, WCFCST are working towards securing parking solutions to aid any form of congestion that may occur. This has been documented throughout the process and is not something that has been overlooked. 6) Lastly Mrs Mettrick states “we’ve got the new M&S, which is lovely as I’m a big Marks & Spencer fan”. This is an absolute non-argument. As long as she’s happy with the stores there then that’s great? How are a community of sports and leisure people going to make any use of a M&S? It is time for everybody to get behind the Supporters Trust and back their proposals. A city as big as Worcester, which is renowned for its participation in a number of sports, without a football club would be terrible. Now is the time to support it and not scrutinise things that people are working tirelessly to resolve.[/p][/quote]Good to see someone is prepared to enter in to a proper debate. Surely low turnouts like 700 will be a disaster? The fans' website hopes the stadium will have "Capacity of 4130 persons with possibility to increase to 5540 if tiered terraces are utilised to include a 500 covered seated stand and 2x 130 covered terraced stand" and "Other terracing is to be open plan but will enable us to expand and put in more covered areas in the future. Surely the hope is bigger and better crowds? We await parking solutions to address this. Petitioning is not an exact science. As a rough idea, I have spoken to 25 households, had one person in favour, 4 undecided and about 35 people have signed. Mostly people say the road is not sufficient to have such a major venue and the dump approach needs sorting out but has not been. Does not inspire confidence in altering the highways to suit. The article announces that a peition is being carried out. It's a bit early to write it off. I think the number of streets petitioned will be small, so it will be easy to see what proportion of objectors will be. I don't think Mrs Mettrick was asked to put a killer point to the reporter when she said she like M+S! What is clear is that she is not saying 'stop developing things in our neighbourhood'. Like many people I have spoken to, it's not building (like a swimming pool) and change that we worry about, it's large scale scheduled events. 700 - 5000 people do not go shopping in the same place at the same time (once the opening event hype has died down, anyway). I have to disagree with the idea of scrutiny being bad. This is part of people having a say, participation, dare I say, democracy?! Within reason we will scrutinise, pick over and pick apart the plans, and maybe the answers you come up with will make your case stronger next time? There's an awful lot of questions about who will pay for the roadworks, pedestrian crossings, heaven knows what else - things that are not even your responsibility - when you don't know just yet that you've enough money for the goalposts. I appreciate that a lot of time is going in to this, and I don't doubt the determination. Surely respecting those with opposing views does not mean keeping quiet? Handcart
  • Score: 40

5:58pm Mon 7 Apr 14

thompson9100 says...

I see the issue of congestion in the area, but it is the school, and the majority of those who prefer to drive the short distance to drop off their child instead of getting some exercise! And of course the tip causes it's fair share on a weekend.

Now, I'm all for the football club having a new permanent home, but throughout all the ideas and failed plans, I have never been able to understand why such a small club is trying to build a stadium big enough to make clubs in division 2 envious. Maybe one day Worcester will get back to the conference, but I can't see that for many years, especially with ongoing finance issues the lines of Hereford are seeing. Worcester just won't manage to attract the crowds to break even, let alone pay full time professional players. The catchment is just not big enough, and with such clubs like villa, wolves, and the boys so near having such a loyal following, it's just not feasible. Sorry to put a downer on it all!
I see the issue of congestion in the area, but it is the school, and the majority of those who prefer to drive the short distance to drop off their child instead of getting some exercise! And of course the tip causes it's fair share on a weekend. Now, I'm all for the football club having a new permanent home, but throughout all the ideas and failed plans, I have never been able to understand why such a small club is trying to build a stadium big enough to make clubs in division 2 envious. Maybe one day Worcester will get back to the conference, but I can't see that for many years, especially with ongoing finance issues the lines of Hereford are seeing. Worcester just won't manage to attract the crowds to break even, let alone pay full time professional players. The catchment is just not big enough, and with such clubs like villa, wolves, and the boys so near having such a loyal following, it's just not feasible. Sorry to put a downer on it all! thompson9100
  • Score: 14

6:41pm Mon 7 Apr 14

r-goode says...

Handcart wrote:
r-goode wrote:
I have been a fan of WCFC for almost 20 years and am fully behind not only the Perdiswell plans, but also everything the WCFCST propose. However, personal reasons aside, this is an extremely poor argument for a number of reasons.

1) Mrs Mettrick claims the biggest issue would be congestion. As previously mentioned WCFC would play approximately 25/30 games there per season (including friendlies, league and cup games), with an average attendance for league and cup of somewhere in the region of 700
2) I assume that prior to organising this petition Mrs Mettrick would have fully read the planning application or visited the presentation that WCFCST put on at Perdiswell Sports Centre? If so then I also assume that when asking for people to sign the petition, she will have informed everybody of the proposed community stadium plans and also of the benefits to the community that it would bring?
3) This article mentions that 70 people have currently signed the petition, I for one would be extremely interested in finding out how many people refused to sign it? If you average 2 people per household that was asked, then it is only 35 houses that agreed and signed it. Surely more doors were knocked on than 35 before approaching the press?
4) This article also mentions Lidls new proposed developments on Archdales. I am not fully aware of the facts regarding this, although can only assume the Lidl over the road will be/has been bought out by another business? I would be interested in knowing why residents who are against congestion issues do not feel there is an issue with a Lidl store to be placed right beside Sainsburys? Both of these stores will be open 7 days a week and would create a huge amount more congestion than a community based football stadium surely?
5) As Rob Crean from has stated, WCFCST are working towards securing parking solutions to aid any form of congestion that may occur. This has been documented throughout the process and is not something that has been overlooked.
6) Lastly Mrs Mettrick states “we’ve got the new M&S, which is lovely as I’m a big Marks & Spencer fan”. This is an absolute non-argument. As long as she’s happy with the stores there then that’s great? How are a community of sports and leisure people going to make any use of a M&S?

It is time for everybody to get behind the Supporters Trust and back their proposals. A city as big as Worcester, which is renowned for its participation in a number of sports, without a football club would be terrible. Now is the time to support it and not scrutinise things that people are working tirelessly to resolve.
Good to see someone is prepared to enter in to a proper debate.
Surely low turnouts like 700 will be a disaster? The fans' website hopes the stadium will have "Capacity of 4130 persons with possibility to increase to 5540 if tiered terraces are utilised to include a 500 covered seated stand and 2x 130 covered terraced stand" and "Other terracing is to be open plan but will enable us to expand and put in more covered areas in the future. Surely the hope is bigger and better crowds? We await parking solutions to address this.

Petitioning is not an exact science. As a rough idea, I have spoken to 25 households, had one person in favour, 4 undecided and about 35 people have signed. Mostly people say the road is not sufficient to have such a major venue and the dump approach needs sorting out but has not been. Does not inspire confidence in altering the highways to suit.

The article announces that a peition is being carried out. It's a bit early to write it off. I think the number of streets petitioned will be small, so it will be easy to see what proportion of objectors will be.

I don't think Mrs Mettrick was asked to put a killer point to the reporter when she said she like M+S! What is clear is that she is not saying 'stop developing things in our neighbourhood'. Like many people I have spoken to, it's not building (like a swimming pool) and change that we worry about, it's large scale scheduled events. 700 - 5000 people do not go shopping in the same place at the same time (once the opening event hype has died down, anyway).

I have to disagree with the idea of scrutiny being bad. This is part of people having a say, participation, dare I say, democracy?! Within reason we will scrutinise, pick over and pick apart the plans, and maybe the answers you come up with will make your case stronger next time? There's an awful lot of questions about who will pay for the roadworks, pedestrian crossings, heaven knows what else - things that are not even your responsibility - when you don't know just yet that you've enough money for the goalposts.

I appreciate that a lot of time is going in to this, and I don't doubt the determination. Surely respecting those with opposing views does not mean keeping quiet?
FAO Handcart:
"Surely low turnouts like 700 will be a disaster? The fans' website hopes the stadium will have "Capacity of 4130 persons with possibility to increase to 5540 if tiered terraces are utilised to include a 500 covered seated stand and 2x 130 covered terraced stand" and "Other terracing is to be open plan but will enable us to expand and put in more covered areas in the future. Surely the hope is bigger and better crowds? We await parking solutions to address this."

The capacity and average attendance in lower league football have no correlation. The capacity is in accordance with league guidelines, not only for current league status, but for future aspirations (see http://www.safetyats
portsgrounds.org.uk/
advice/conference-cl
ub-guidance/ground-c
apacity-and-seating for rough guide). However the plans that are due to go in will be for a sustainable stadium that will have self funding features (conferencing/classr
oom/3G pitch).

"Mostly people say the road is not sufficient to have such a major venue and the dump approach needs sorting out but has not been."

I appreciated that the dump may cause some congestion, however as mentioned I believe WCFCST are looking at alternative car parking areas (mentioned include Tudor Grange and Park & Ride) which are away from the immediate area, thus spreading any possible congestion.

"700 - 5000 people do not go shopping in the same place at the same time"

I totally agree, but the idea of congestion will only be at certain times on match days (I imagine between 4:30 and 5:00pm on a Saturday and 9:30 and 10:00pm on midweek games). People travelling to games arrive at staggered times so I can't imagine it will get too busy before the majority of games.

"There's an awful lot of questions about who will pay for the roadworks, pedestrian crossings, heaven knows what else - things that are not even your responsibility - when you don't know just yet that you've enough money for the goalposts."

I believe there will be a WCFCST public meeting soon which will be an ideal thing to attend for local residents with any concerns such as these.

"Surely respecting those with opposing views does not mean keeping quiet?"

Most definitely not, however the WCFCST are working hard to ensure that the stadium would be suitable for everyone, not just for WCFC and their purposes and congestion I imagine will be high on their agenda to resolve.

Hope this helps somewhat, unfortunately I'm not on the committee of the WCFCST, however if you wish to find out more in depth information I'm sure you could contact someone that is www.wcfcst.co.uk
[quote][p][bold]Handcart[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]r-goode[/bold] wrote: I have been a fan of WCFC for almost 20 years and am fully behind not only the Perdiswell plans, but also everything the WCFCST propose. However, personal reasons aside, this is an extremely poor argument for a number of reasons. 1) Mrs Mettrick claims the biggest issue would be congestion. As previously mentioned WCFC would play approximately 25/30 games there per season (including friendlies, league and cup games), with an average attendance for league and cup of somewhere in the region of 700 2) I assume that prior to organising this petition Mrs Mettrick would have fully read the planning application or visited the presentation that WCFCST put on at Perdiswell Sports Centre? If so then I also assume that when asking for people to sign the petition, she will have informed everybody of the proposed community stadium plans and also of the benefits to the community that it would bring? 3) This article mentions that 70 people have currently signed the petition, I for one would be extremely interested in finding out how many people refused to sign it? If you average 2 people per household that was asked, then it is only 35 houses that agreed and signed it. Surely more doors were knocked on than 35 before approaching the press? 4) This article also mentions Lidls new proposed developments on Archdales. I am not fully aware of the facts regarding this, although can only assume the Lidl over the road will be/has been bought out by another business? I would be interested in knowing why residents who are against congestion issues do not feel there is an issue with a Lidl store to be placed right beside Sainsburys? Both of these stores will be open 7 days a week and would create a huge amount more congestion than a community based football stadium surely? 5) As Rob Crean from has stated, WCFCST are working towards securing parking solutions to aid any form of congestion that may occur. This has been documented throughout the process and is not something that has been overlooked. 6) Lastly Mrs Mettrick states “we’ve got the new M&S, which is lovely as I’m a big Marks & Spencer fan”. This is an absolute non-argument. As long as she’s happy with the stores there then that’s great? How are a community of sports and leisure people going to make any use of a M&S? It is time for everybody to get behind the Supporters Trust and back their proposals. A city as big as Worcester, which is renowned for its participation in a number of sports, without a football club would be terrible. Now is the time to support it and not scrutinise things that people are working tirelessly to resolve.[/p][/quote]Good to see someone is prepared to enter in to a proper debate. Surely low turnouts like 700 will be a disaster? The fans' website hopes the stadium will have "Capacity of 4130 persons with possibility to increase to 5540 if tiered terraces are utilised to include a 500 covered seated stand and 2x 130 covered terraced stand" and "Other terracing is to be open plan but will enable us to expand and put in more covered areas in the future. Surely the hope is bigger and better crowds? We await parking solutions to address this. Petitioning is not an exact science. As a rough idea, I have spoken to 25 households, had one person in favour, 4 undecided and about 35 people have signed. Mostly people say the road is not sufficient to have such a major venue and the dump approach needs sorting out but has not been. Does not inspire confidence in altering the highways to suit. The article announces that a peition is being carried out. It's a bit early to write it off. I think the number of streets petitioned will be small, so it will be easy to see what proportion of objectors will be. I don't think Mrs Mettrick was asked to put a killer point to the reporter when she said she like M+S! What is clear is that she is not saying 'stop developing things in our neighbourhood'. Like many people I have spoken to, it's not building (like a swimming pool) and change that we worry about, it's large scale scheduled events. 700 - 5000 people do not go shopping in the same place at the same time (once the opening event hype has died down, anyway). I have to disagree with the idea of scrutiny being bad. This is part of people having a say, participation, dare I say, democracy?! Within reason we will scrutinise, pick over and pick apart the plans, and maybe the answers you come up with will make your case stronger next time? There's an awful lot of questions about who will pay for the roadworks, pedestrian crossings, heaven knows what else - things that are not even your responsibility - when you don't know just yet that you've enough money for the goalposts. I appreciate that a lot of time is going in to this, and I don't doubt the determination. Surely respecting those with opposing views does not mean keeping quiet?[/p][/quote]FAO Handcart: "Surely low turnouts like 700 will be a disaster? The fans' website hopes the stadium will have "Capacity of 4130 persons with possibility to increase to 5540 if tiered terraces are utilised to include a 500 covered seated stand and 2x 130 covered terraced stand" and "Other terracing is to be open plan but will enable us to expand and put in more covered areas in the future. Surely the hope is bigger and better crowds? We await parking solutions to address this." The capacity and average attendance in lower league football have no correlation. The capacity is in accordance with league guidelines, not only for current league status, but for future aspirations (see http://www.safetyats portsgrounds.org.uk/ advice/conference-cl ub-guidance/ground-c apacity-and-seating for rough guide). However the plans that are due to go in will be for a sustainable stadium that will have self funding features (conferencing/classr oom/3G pitch). "Mostly people say the road is not sufficient to have such a major venue and the dump approach needs sorting out but has not been." I appreciated that the dump may cause some congestion, however as mentioned I believe WCFCST are looking at alternative car parking areas (mentioned include Tudor Grange and Park & Ride) which are away from the immediate area, thus spreading any possible congestion. "700 - 5000 people do not go shopping in the same place at the same time" I totally agree, but the idea of congestion will only be at certain times on match days (I imagine between 4:30 and 5:00pm on a Saturday and 9:30 and 10:00pm on midweek games). People travelling to games arrive at staggered times so I can't imagine it will get too busy before the majority of games. "There's an awful lot of questions about who will pay for the roadworks, pedestrian crossings, heaven knows what else - things that are not even your responsibility - when you don't know just yet that you've enough money for the goalposts." I believe there will be a WCFCST public meeting soon which will be an ideal thing to attend for local residents with any concerns such as these. "Surely respecting those with opposing views does not mean keeping quiet?" Most definitely not, however the WCFCST are working hard to ensure that the stadium would be suitable for everyone, not just for WCFC and their purposes and congestion I imagine will be high on their agenda to resolve. Hope this helps somewhat, unfortunately I'm not on the committee of the WCFCST, however if you wish to find out more in depth information I'm sure you could contact someone that is www.wcfcst.co.uk r-goode
  • Score: -28

7:28pm Mon 7 Apr 14

wuster says...

Is the plan for a Community Stadium or Worcester City FC's Stadium?

If it is a Community Stadium, could I book it for a hockey match on a Saturday afternoon at 3.00pm ?
Is the plan for a Community Stadium or Worcester City FC's Stadium? If it is a Community Stadium, could I book it for a hockey match on a Saturday afternoon at 3.00pm ? wuster
  • Score: 1

8:30pm Mon 7 Apr 14

livinginworcester says...

r-goode wrote:
Handcart wrote:
r-goode wrote:
I have been a fan of WCFC for almost 20 years and am fully behind not only the Perdiswell plans, but also everything the WCFCST propose. However, personal reasons aside, this is an extremely poor argument for a number of reasons.

1) Mrs Mettrick claims the biggest issue would be congestion. As previously mentioned WCFC would play approximately 25/30 games there per season (including friendlies, league and cup games), with an average attendance for league and cup of somewhere in the region of 700
2) I assume that prior to organising this petition Mrs Mettrick would have fully read the planning application or visited the presentation that WCFCST put on at Perdiswell Sports Centre? If so then I also assume that when asking for people to sign the petition, she will have informed everybody of the proposed community stadium plans and also of the benefits to the community that it would bring?
3) This article mentions that 70 people have currently signed the petition, I for one would be extremely interested in finding out how many people refused to sign it? If you average 2 people per household that was asked, then it is only 35 houses that agreed and signed it. Surely more doors were knocked on than 35 before approaching the press?
4) This article also mentions Lidls new proposed developments on Archdales. I am not fully aware of the facts regarding this, although can only assume the Lidl over the road will be/has been bought out by another business? I would be interested in knowing why residents who are against congestion issues do not feel there is an issue with a Lidl store to be placed right beside Sainsburys? Both of these stores will be open 7 days a week and would create a huge amount more congestion than a community based football stadium surely?
5) As Rob Crean from has stated, WCFCST are working towards securing parking solutions to aid any form of congestion that may occur. This has been documented throughout the process and is not something that has been overlooked.
6) Lastly Mrs Mettrick states “we’ve got the new M&S, which is lovely as I’m a big Marks & Spencer fan”. This is an absolute non-argument. As long as she’s happy with the stores there then that’s great? How are a community of sports and leisure people going to make any use of a M&S?

It is time for everybody to get behind the Supporters Trust and back their proposals. A city as big as Worcester, which is renowned for its participation in a number of sports, without a football club would be terrible. Now is the time to support it and not scrutinise things that people are working tirelessly to resolve.
Good to see someone is prepared to enter in to a proper debate.
Surely low turnouts like 700 will be a disaster? The fans' website hopes the stadium will have "Capacity of 4130 persons with possibility to increase to 5540 if tiered terraces are utilised to include a 500 covered seated stand and 2x 130 covered terraced stand" and "Other terracing is to be open plan but will enable us to expand and put in more covered areas in the future. Surely the hope is bigger and better crowds? We await parking solutions to address this.

Petitioning is not an exact science. As a rough idea, I have spoken to 25 households, had one person in favour, 4 undecided and about 35 people have signed. Mostly people say the road is not sufficient to have such a major venue and the dump approach needs sorting out but has not been. Does not inspire confidence in altering the highways to suit.

The article announces that a peition is being carried out. It's a bit early to write it off. I think the number of streets petitioned will be small, so it will be easy to see what proportion of objectors will be.

I don't think Mrs Mettrick was asked to put a killer point to the reporter when she said she like M+S! What is clear is that she is not saying 'stop developing things in our neighbourhood'. Like many people I have spoken to, it's not building (like a swimming pool) and change that we worry about, it's large scale scheduled events. 700 - 5000 people do not go shopping in the same place at the same time (once the opening event hype has died down, anyway).

I have to disagree with the idea of scrutiny being bad. This is part of people having a say, participation, dare I say, democracy?! Within reason we will scrutinise, pick over and pick apart the plans, and maybe the answers you come up with will make your case stronger next time? There's an awful lot of questions about who will pay for the roadworks, pedestrian crossings, heaven knows what else - things that are not even your responsibility - when you don't know just yet that you've enough money for the goalposts.

I appreciate that a lot of time is going in to this, and I don't doubt the determination. Surely respecting those with opposing views does not mean keeping quiet?
FAO Handcart:
"Surely low turnouts like 700 will be a disaster? The fans' website hopes the stadium will have "Capacity of 4130 persons with possibility to increase to 5540 if tiered terraces are utilised to include a 500 covered seated stand and 2x 130 covered terraced stand" and "Other terracing is to be open plan but will enable us to expand and put in more covered areas in the future. Surely the hope is bigger and better crowds? We await parking solutions to address this."

The capacity and average attendance in lower league football have no correlation. The capacity is in accordance with league guidelines, not only for current league status, but for future aspirations (see http://www.safetyats

portsgrounds.org.uk/

advice/conference-cl

ub-guidance/ground-c

apacity-and-seating for rough guide). However the plans that are due to go in will be for a sustainable stadium that will have self funding features (conferencing/classr

oom/3G pitch).

"Mostly people say the road is not sufficient to have such a major venue and the dump approach needs sorting out but has not been."

I appreciated that the dump may cause some congestion, however as mentioned I believe WCFCST are looking at alternative car parking areas (mentioned include Tudor Grange and Park & Ride) which are away from the immediate area, thus spreading any possible congestion.

"700 - 5000 people do not go shopping in the same place at the same time"

I totally agree, but the idea of congestion will only be at certain times on match days (I imagine between 4:30 and 5:00pm on a Saturday and 9:30 and 10:00pm on midweek games). People travelling to games arrive at staggered times so I can't imagine it will get too busy before the majority of games.

"There's an awful lot of questions about who will pay for the roadworks, pedestrian crossings, heaven knows what else - things that are not even your responsibility - when you don't know just yet that you've enough money for the goalposts."

I believe there will be a WCFCST public meeting soon which will be an ideal thing to attend for local residents with any concerns such as these.

"Surely respecting those with opposing views does not mean keeping quiet?"

Most definitely not, however the WCFCST are working hard to ensure that the stadium would be suitable for everyone, not just for WCFC and their purposes and congestion I imagine will be high on their agenda to resolve.

Hope this helps somewhat, unfortunately I'm not on the committee of the WCFCST, however if you wish to find out more in depth information I'm sure you could contact someone that is www.wcfcst.co.uk
r-goode wrote: "... congestion will only be at certain times on match days (I imagine between 4:30 and 5:00pm on a Saturday and 9:30 and 10:00pm on midweek games). People travelling to games arrive at staggered times so I can't imagine it will get too busy before the majority of games."

I wouldn't want to live in the residential areas surrounding the proposed stadium - noise, floodlights, lots of people arriving at staggered times, leaving late at night on a week day, supporters parking their cars in the streets around the stadium. Also, the capacity may be in accordance with league guidelines but building for a potential 4000 to 5000 people is far too many for this area. Seems inconsiderate to move the stadium from one residential area and put a new one in another residential area.
[quote][p][bold]r-goode[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Handcart[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]r-goode[/bold] wrote: I have been a fan of WCFC for almost 20 years and am fully behind not only the Perdiswell plans, but also everything the WCFCST propose. However, personal reasons aside, this is an extremely poor argument for a number of reasons. 1) Mrs Mettrick claims the biggest issue would be congestion. As previously mentioned WCFC would play approximately 25/30 games there per season (including friendlies, league and cup games), with an average attendance for league and cup of somewhere in the region of 700 2) I assume that prior to organising this petition Mrs Mettrick would have fully read the planning application or visited the presentation that WCFCST put on at Perdiswell Sports Centre? If so then I also assume that when asking for people to sign the petition, she will have informed everybody of the proposed community stadium plans and also of the benefits to the community that it would bring? 3) This article mentions that 70 people have currently signed the petition, I for one would be extremely interested in finding out how many people refused to sign it? If you average 2 people per household that was asked, then it is only 35 houses that agreed and signed it. Surely more doors were knocked on than 35 before approaching the press? 4) This article also mentions Lidls new proposed developments on Archdales. I am not fully aware of the facts regarding this, although can only assume the Lidl over the road will be/has been bought out by another business? I would be interested in knowing why residents who are against congestion issues do not feel there is an issue with a Lidl store to be placed right beside Sainsburys? Both of these stores will be open 7 days a week and would create a huge amount more congestion than a community based football stadium surely? 5) As Rob Crean from has stated, WCFCST are working towards securing parking solutions to aid any form of congestion that may occur. This has been documented throughout the process and is not something that has been overlooked. 6) Lastly Mrs Mettrick states “we’ve got the new M&S, which is lovely as I’m a big Marks & Spencer fan”. This is an absolute non-argument. As long as she’s happy with the stores there then that’s great? How are a community of sports and leisure people going to make any use of a M&S? It is time for everybody to get behind the Supporters Trust and back their proposals. A city as big as Worcester, which is renowned for its participation in a number of sports, without a football club would be terrible. Now is the time to support it and not scrutinise things that people are working tirelessly to resolve.[/p][/quote]Good to see someone is prepared to enter in to a proper debate. Surely low turnouts like 700 will be a disaster? The fans' website hopes the stadium will have "Capacity of 4130 persons with possibility to increase to 5540 if tiered terraces are utilised to include a 500 covered seated stand and 2x 130 covered terraced stand" and "Other terracing is to be open plan but will enable us to expand and put in more covered areas in the future. Surely the hope is bigger and better crowds? We await parking solutions to address this. Petitioning is not an exact science. As a rough idea, I have spoken to 25 households, had one person in favour, 4 undecided and about 35 people have signed. Mostly people say the road is not sufficient to have such a major venue and the dump approach needs sorting out but has not been. Does not inspire confidence in altering the highways to suit. The article announces that a peition is being carried out. It's a bit early to write it off. I think the number of streets petitioned will be small, so it will be easy to see what proportion of objectors will be. I don't think Mrs Mettrick was asked to put a killer point to the reporter when she said she like M+S! What is clear is that she is not saying 'stop developing things in our neighbourhood'. Like many people I have spoken to, it's not building (like a swimming pool) and change that we worry about, it's large scale scheduled events. 700 - 5000 people do not go shopping in the same place at the same time (once the opening event hype has died down, anyway). I have to disagree with the idea of scrutiny being bad. This is part of people having a say, participation, dare I say, democracy?! Within reason we will scrutinise, pick over and pick apart the plans, and maybe the answers you come up with will make your case stronger next time? There's an awful lot of questions about who will pay for the roadworks, pedestrian crossings, heaven knows what else - things that are not even your responsibility - when you don't know just yet that you've enough money for the goalposts. I appreciate that a lot of time is going in to this, and I don't doubt the determination. Surely respecting those with opposing views does not mean keeping quiet?[/p][/quote]FAO Handcart: "Surely low turnouts like 700 will be a disaster? The fans' website hopes the stadium will have "Capacity of 4130 persons with possibility to increase to 5540 if tiered terraces are utilised to include a 500 covered seated stand and 2x 130 covered terraced stand" and "Other terracing is to be open plan but will enable us to expand and put in more covered areas in the future. Surely the hope is bigger and better crowds? We await parking solutions to address this." The capacity and average attendance in lower league football have no correlation. The capacity is in accordance with league guidelines, not only for current league status, but for future aspirations (see http://www.safetyats portsgrounds.org.uk/ advice/conference-cl ub-guidance/ground-c apacity-and-seating for rough guide). However the plans that are due to go in will be for a sustainable stadium that will have self funding features (conferencing/classr oom/3G pitch). "Mostly people say the road is not sufficient to have such a major venue and the dump approach needs sorting out but has not been." I appreciated that the dump may cause some congestion, however as mentioned I believe WCFCST are looking at alternative car parking areas (mentioned include Tudor Grange and Park & Ride) which are away from the immediate area, thus spreading any possible congestion. "700 - 5000 people do not go shopping in the same place at the same time" I totally agree, but the idea of congestion will only be at certain times on match days (I imagine between 4:30 and 5:00pm on a Saturday and 9:30 and 10:00pm on midweek games). People travelling to games arrive at staggered times so I can't imagine it will get too busy before the majority of games. "There's an awful lot of questions about who will pay for the roadworks, pedestrian crossings, heaven knows what else - things that are not even your responsibility - when you don't know just yet that you've enough money for the goalposts." I believe there will be a WCFCST public meeting soon which will be an ideal thing to attend for local residents with any concerns such as these. "Surely respecting those with opposing views does not mean keeping quiet?" Most definitely not, however the WCFCST are working hard to ensure that the stadium would be suitable for everyone, not just for WCFC and their purposes and congestion I imagine will be high on their agenda to resolve. Hope this helps somewhat, unfortunately I'm not on the committee of the WCFCST, however if you wish to find out more in depth information I'm sure you could contact someone that is www.wcfcst.co.uk[/p][/quote]r-goode wrote: "... congestion will only be at certain times on match days (I imagine between 4:30 and 5:00pm on a Saturday and 9:30 and 10:00pm on midweek games). People travelling to games arrive at staggered times so I can't imagine it will get too busy before the majority of games." I wouldn't want to live in the residential areas surrounding the proposed stadium - noise, floodlights, lots of people arriving at staggered times, leaving late at night on a week day, supporters parking their cars in the streets around the stadium. Also, the capacity may be in accordance with league guidelines but building for a potential 4000 to 5000 people is far too many for this area. Seems inconsiderate to move the stadium from one residential area and put a new one in another residential area. livinginworcester
  • Score: 27

8:00am Tue 8 Apr 14

worcswolf says...

Personally feel that before any people waste time getting petitions the council need to stipulate whether they are prepared to back Worcester City in coming back to their home. After that then a proper survey of sites need looking into because if you are developing a local sports centre into a ground then surely nunnery wood would be better. Transport and the location to motorway.
I think the only reason perdiswell is being touted is that Sainsburys want to build a supermarket their and help pay for the ground and if thats a possibility then let it run.
Congestion in this area is only at peak times school runs and people getting to and from work otherwise its quiet i know i live locally. the roads around here do get busy but a few more cars will not be noticable.
Personally feel that before any people waste time getting petitions the council need to stipulate whether they are prepared to back Worcester City in coming back to their home. After that then a proper survey of sites need looking into because if you are developing a local sports centre into a ground then surely nunnery wood would be better. Transport and the location to motorway. I think the only reason perdiswell is being touted is that Sainsburys want to build a supermarket their and help pay for the ground and if thats a possibility then let it run. Congestion in this area is only at peak times school runs and people getting to and from work otherwise its quiet i know i live locally. the roads around here do get busy but a few more cars will not be noticable. worcswolf
  • Score: -28

9:28am Tue 8 Apr 14

Roger5 says...

I used to live in the vicinity of the old football ground at St George's Lane, and there were plenty of inconsiderate people parking badly but I believe the majority of people arrived by public transport or on foot and caused no problems. The key to developing the Perdiswell site is around the potential economies of shared services for a football club, swimming pool and other uses: one car park, one bus service from the town centre, one set of security, facilities and site management, all of which will benefit the local community in terms of amenities and jobs. Plenty of Worcester folks want/need more exercise and entertainment than a visit to the shops or walking their dog in a park!
I used to live in the vicinity of the old football ground at St George's Lane, and there were plenty of inconsiderate people parking badly but I believe the majority of people arrived by public transport or on foot and caused no problems. The key to developing the Perdiswell site is around the potential economies of shared services for a football club, swimming pool and other uses: one car park, one bus service from the town centre, one set of security, facilities and site management, all of which will benefit the local community in terms of amenities and jobs. Plenty of Worcester folks want/need more exercise and entertainment than a visit to the shops or walking their dog in a park! Roger5
  • Score: 1

9:38am Tue 8 Apr 14

SazB says...

So where is the right location for the Club then? No, not everyone follows football ... what are people more against? The development of Perdiswell or the potential Football Stadium that may be built there?

The football club aren't lucky enough to have money ploughed into it like the rugby club (not that that's helped considering they're on the verge of relegation with crowds almost halving), so stop with the negativity and get behind it! A City the size of Worcester should have a football ground, wherever it may be and people should be supporting it .. and if people followed their local club instead of the so called big clubs then maybe the football club wouldn't be in this mess in the first place *rant over*.
So where is the right location for the Club then? No, not everyone follows football ... what are people more against? The development of Perdiswell or the potential Football Stadium that may be built there? The football club aren't lucky enough to have money ploughed into it like the rugby club (not that that's helped considering they're on the verge of relegation with crowds almost halving), so stop with the negativity and get behind it! A City the size of Worcester should have a football ground, wherever it may be and people should be supporting it .. and if people followed their local club instead of the so called big clubs then maybe the football club wouldn't be in this mess in the first place *rant over*. SazB
  • Score: -2

10:54am Tue 8 Apr 14

apching says...

I personally think this is great for the city (and I'm not even a football fan!) - the infrastructure (parking, bus routes etc.) are already in place. But more importantly, we have the chance to have a community stadium on a site where sport is already at home.

We have the opportunity to have a "Sports Quarter" with a multi use sports centre, playing fields, golf course, gym, swimming pool and community stadium.... what's not to like?

I live in this area too, but I think the traffic issues are overplayed - there are far worse traffic concerns elsewhere in the city and I can't see how this is going to make such a massive difference. In my opinion the best way to fix traffic on Bilford road would be do something about the waste site there!
I personally think this is great for the city (and I'm not even a football fan!) - the infrastructure (parking, bus routes etc.) are already in place. But more importantly, we have the chance to have a community stadium on a site where sport is already at home. We have the opportunity to have a "Sports Quarter" with a multi use sports centre, playing fields, golf course, gym, swimming pool and community stadium.... what's not to like? I live in this area too, but I think the traffic issues are overplayed - there are far worse traffic concerns elsewhere in the city and I can't see how this is going to make such a massive difference. In my opinion the best way to fix traffic on Bilford road would be do something about the waste site there! apching
  • Score: -21

11:21am Tue 8 Apr 14

liketoknow says...

i'm not surprised at the protests. it's the same attitude that got Worcester city football club in the predicament they're in now. Both Kidderminster and Hereford embrace their teams. twentyeight miles up the road they're fighting tooth and nail to save their team. in Worcester they're doing their best to make sure we don't have one .
i'm not surprised at the protests. it's the same attitude that got Worcester city football club in the predicament they're in now. Both Kidderminster and Hereford embrace their teams. twentyeight miles up the road they're fighting tooth and nail to save their team. in Worcester they're doing their best to make sure we don't have one . liketoknow
  • Score: -3

11:23am Tue 8 Apr 14

SazB says...

And Worcester City haven't fought tooth and nail then?! Do you follow local football?
And Worcester City haven't fought tooth and nail then?! Do you follow local football? SazB
  • Score: 0

11:35am Tue 8 Apr 14

liketoknow says...

SazB wrote:
And Worcester City haven't fought tooth and nail then?! Do you follow local football?
yes I do. the point I'm making is the attitude towards the football club has always been negative. I follow my home team , from way back in the sixties when my dad used to take me to watch the City.
[quote][p][bold]SazB[/bold] wrote: And Worcester City haven't fought tooth and nail then?! Do you follow local football?[/p][/quote]yes I do. the point I'm making is the attitude towards the football club has always been negative. I follow my home team , from way back in the sixties when my dad used to take me to watch the City. liketoknow
  • Score: 0

1:46pm Tue 8 Apr 14

green49 says...

Perdiswell was a proposed site for the Football club years ago dont remember what happened about that but it does seem the best place, its got public transport, should have parking facilities and easy access for people coming from out of the city, Worcester City FC should be playing here not somewhere else but then i dont know the ins and outs of what the hell happened with the board to allow it to get in this state in the first place.
Perdiswell was a proposed site for the Football club years ago dont remember what happened about that but it does seem the best place, its got public transport, should have parking facilities and easy access for people coming from out of the city, Worcester City FC should be playing here not somewhere else but then i dont know the ins and outs of what the hell happened with the board to allow it to get in this state in the first place. green49
  • Score: -1

2:42pm Tue 8 Apr 14

itsallinthe locker says...

A great idea and place to bring the football club back home. Regarding the level of support I think the crowd that supported the club on its last match at St Georges Lane of over 3000 proves that their is the interest in Worcester City F C in the city.
A great idea and place to bring the football club back home. Regarding the level of support I think the crowd that supported the club on its last match at St Georges Lane of over 3000 proves that their is the interest in Worcester City F C in the city. itsallinthe locker
  • Score: -11

4:49pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Worcester Lad says...

I also live in WR3 and cannot see why someone living in a fairly quiet place such as Drovers Way would want to start a petition as it would not affect them.No extra traffic/noise in that area .Strange
I also live in WR3 and cannot see why someone living in a fairly quiet place such as Drovers Way would want to start a petition as it would not affect them.No extra traffic/noise in that area .Strange Worcester Lad
  • Score: -22

12:01am Wed 9 Apr 14

CityBlueBoy says...

Please show your support for the Trust and WCFC by adding their pages on Facebook and Twitter. Regular updates, Fundraisers, live match feeds etc etc can all be seen there !
Please show your support for the Trust and WCFC by adding their pages on Facebook and Twitter. Regular updates, Fundraisers, live match feeds etc etc can all be seen there ! CityBlueBoy
  • Score: -16

12:12pm Wed 9 Apr 14

CommonSenseFriends says...

Huge bloody eye saw and even more congestion in a quite part of Worcester. We'll have the M&S but you can keep your whale of a football club. Stadium share with the rugby club which is losing millions of pounds..... then everyone's happy.
Huge bloody eye saw and even more congestion in a quite part of Worcester. We'll have the M&S but you can keep your whale of a football club. Stadium share with the rugby club which is losing millions of pounds..... then everyone's happy. CommonSenseFriends
  • Score: 12

3:01pm Wed 9 Apr 14

itsallinthe locker says...

CommonSenseFriends wrote:
Huge bloody eye saw and even more congestion in a quite part of Worcester. We'll have the M&S but you can keep your whale of a football club. Stadium share with the rugby club which is losing millions of pounds..... then everyone's happy.
How many times does it have to be repeated, ground sharing with the rugby club is a non starter because the F A insist on primacy of fixtures for any football club ground sharing with a rugby club.
[quote][p][bold]CommonSenseFriends[/bold] wrote: Huge bloody eye saw and even more congestion in a quite part of Worcester. We'll have the M&S but you can keep your whale of a football club. Stadium share with the rugby club which is losing millions of pounds..... then everyone's happy.[/p][/quote]How many times does it have to be repeated, ground sharing with the rugby club is a non starter because the F A insist on primacy of fixtures for any football club ground sharing with a rugby club. itsallinthe locker
  • Score: -4

6:45pm Wed 9 Apr 14

livinginworcester says...

Worcester Lad wrote:
I also live in WR3 and cannot see why someone living in a fairly quiet place such as Drovers Way would want to start a petition as it would not affect them.No extra traffic/noise in that area .Strange
A quick look at Google maps shows how close the houses on the Drovers Way estate will be to the stadium for noise and traffic. There are roads off Drovers Way that have direct access to Perdiwell Park over canal bridges - Friesland Close, Kerry Hill, Suffolk Drive. With parking proposed at Tudor Grange School the foot route from there is through the estate. The estate will become a convenient free car park for WFC supporters - why park at Tudor Grange or the Park and Ride when you can park nearer? Yes, it is a quiet estate at the moment but won't be any more if the stadium is built - if the problems around St Georges Lane were anything to go by. The same is true for other residential areas around the park, like the streets off Bilford Road and Droitwich Road.

But it's not just that concerning residents and users of the park - there's the issue of the loss of green space, and the way a stadium building will impact on the park.

Besides which, someone doesn't have to live next to something or be directly affected by it in order to care enough to start a petition or sign one. Not strange at all.
[quote][p][bold]Worcester Lad[/bold] wrote: I also live in WR3 and cannot see why someone living in a fairly quiet place such as Drovers Way would want to start a petition as it would not affect them.No extra traffic/noise in that area .Strange[/p][/quote]A quick look at Google maps shows how close the houses on the Drovers Way estate will be to the stadium for noise and traffic. There are roads off Drovers Way that have direct access to Perdiwell Park over canal bridges - Friesland Close, Kerry Hill, Suffolk Drive. With parking proposed at Tudor Grange School the foot route from there is through the estate. The estate will become a convenient free car park for WFC supporters - why park at Tudor Grange or the Park and Ride when you can park nearer? Yes, it is a quiet estate at the moment but won't be any more if the stadium is built - if the problems around St Georges Lane were anything to go by. The same is true for other residential areas around the park, like the streets off Bilford Road and Droitwich Road. But it's not just that concerning residents and users of the park - there's the issue of the loss of green space, and the way a stadium building will impact on the park. Besides which, someone doesn't have to live next to something or be directly affected by it in order to care enough to start a petition or sign one. Not strange at all. livinginworcester
  • Score: 29

3:43pm Thu 10 Apr 14

brooksider says...

livinginworcester wrote:
Worcester Lad wrote:
I also live in WR3 and cannot see why someone living in a fairly quiet place such as Drovers Way would want to start a petition as it would not affect them.No extra traffic/noise in that area .Strange
A quick look at Google maps shows how close the houses on the Drovers Way estate will be to the stadium for noise and traffic. There are roads off Drovers Way that have direct access to Perdiwell Park over canal bridges - Friesland Close, Kerry Hill, Suffolk Drive. With parking proposed at Tudor Grange School the foot route from there is through the estate. The estate will become a convenient free car park for WFC supporters - why park at Tudor Grange or the Park and Ride when you can park nearer? Yes, it is a quiet estate at the moment but won't be any more if the stadium is built - if the problems around St Georges Lane were anything to go by. The same is true for other residential areas around the park, like the streets off Bilford Road and Droitwich Road.

But it's not just that concerning residents and users of the park - there's the issue of the loss of green space, and the way a stadium building will impact on the park.

Besides which, someone doesn't have to live next to something or be directly affected by it in order to care enough to start a petition or sign one. Not strange at all.
I am sure if there were that sort of impact, Worcester County Council would replicate the parking system used at Kidderminster where roads are resident parking only.
[quote][p][bold]livinginworcester[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Worcester Lad[/bold] wrote: I also live in WR3 and cannot see why someone living in a fairly quiet place such as Drovers Way would want to start a petition as it would not affect them.No extra traffic/noise in that area .Strange[/p][/quote]A quick look at Google maps shows how close the houses on the Drovers Way estate will be to the stadium for noise and traffic. There are roads off Drovers Way that have direct access to Perdiwell Park over canal bridges - Friesland Close, Kerry Hill, Suffolk Drive. With parking proposed at Tudor Grange School the foot route from there is through the estate. The estate will become a convenient free car park for WFC supporters - why park at Tudor Grange or the Park and Ride when you can park nearer? Yes, it is a quiet estate at the moment but won't be any more if the stadium is built - if the problems around St Georges Lane were anything to go by. The same is true for other residential areas around the park, like the streets off Bilford Road and Droitwich Road. But it's not just that concerning residents and users of the park - there's the issue of the loss of green space, and the way a stadium building will impact on the park. Besides which, someone doesn't have to live next to something or be directly affected by it in order to care enough to start a petition or sign one. Not strange at all.[/p][/quote]I am sure if there were that sort of impact, Worcester County Council would replicate the parking system used at Kidderminster where roads are resident parking only. brooksider
  • Score: -12

11:05pm Fri 11 Apr 14

MrV says...

I am all for the City FC playing at Perdiswell. A fresh start, a community based club. The current management have worked wonders to keep the team at the current level of football. With the season coming to an end it may be foolish to speak of it as being successful, but that is what I believe. The atmosphere generated by the few hundred has been excellent. Lets face it you aren't going to go 15-20 miles just to have a moan.

Getting back to the point the facilities proposed are not just for the football club but for the whole community. With participation falling it would be nice to have a focal point for the youth to play their sport. It is not all about the Premier league, it is about grass roots football.

I am sure the issues regarding parking and public transport can be resolved. There's a park and ride nearby. People from the town could catch the bus there, I would probably walk up the canal.

I would expect the proposed shops to have a greater impact on traffic 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year than a football club playing 30 home games in a season.
I am all for the City FC playing at Perdiswell. A fresh start, a community based club. The current management have worked wonders to keep the team at the current level of football. With the season coming to an end it may be foolish to speak of it as being successful, but that is what I believe. The atmosphere generated by the few hundred has been excellent. Lets face it you aren't going to go 15-20 miles just to have a moan. Getting back to the point the facilities proposed are not just for the football club but for the whole community. With participation falling it would be nice to have a focal point for the youth to play their sport. It is not all about the Premier league, it is about grass roots football. I am sure the issues regarding parking and public transport can be resolved. There's a park and ride nearby. People from the town could catch the bus there, I would probably walk up the canal. I would expect the proposed shops to have a greater impact on traffic 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year than a football club playing 30 home games in a season. MrV
  • Score: -21

2:36pm Sat 12 Apr 14

Carthaginian says...

Perdiswell was always a disgustingly unhealthy place to play Sunday morning football.
Perdiswell was always a disgustingly unhealthy place to play Sunday morning football. Carthaginian
  • Score: -5

3:15pm Sat 12 Apr 14

Carthaginian says...

Anyway, before everyone gets too carried away, here are some basic stats from the last 25 years that Worcester City were at St Georges Lane:

1. There were 713 first team games in 9,331 days. That is one game every 13 days on average (in simple language, once a fortnight on average). Virtually no games ever in the three months between May and July.

Only on those days, two peaks can be expected. On Saturdays, around 2.15 for approx. half an hour, and around 17.00 for approx. 15 minutes.
On Tuesdays, around 7.15pm for approx. 20 minutes, and around 9.45pm for approx. 15 minutes.

1.5 hours, once a fortnight, is 1.5/336, which is 1/240, which is 0.00004 of the time.

2. The overall average attendance over the 25 years was 829.

3. There were, on average, 7 occasions per year when attendance was more than 1,000.

4. Crowds greater than 2,000 happened, on average, just once every two years.

5. Crowds greater than 3,000 happened, on average, just once every seven years.

6. Crowds greater than 4,000 happened, on average, just once every twelve years.

In order to qualify for their respective leagues, non-league Clubs have to pay the disproportionate costs of having Stadiums with a capacity in excess of 4,000, even though they rarely use that capacity, and often only use a quarter of it on a regular basis.
Anyway, before everyone gets too carried away, here are some basic stats from the last 25 years that Worcester City were at St Georges Lane: 1. There were 713 first team games in 9,331 days. That is one game every 13 days on average (in simple language, once a fortnight on average). Virtually no games ever in the three months between May and July. Only on those days, two peaks can be expected. On Saturdays, around 2.15 for approx. half an hour, and around 17.00 for approx. 15 minutes. On Tuesdays, around 7.15pm for approx. 20 minutes, and around 9.45pm for approx. 15 minutes. 1.5 hours, once a fortnight, is 1.5/336, which is 1/240, which is 0.00004 of the time. 2. The overall average attendance over the 25 years was 829. 3. There were, on average, 7 occasions per year when attendance was more than 1,000. 4. Crowds greater than 2,000 happened, on average, just once every two years. 5. Crowds greater than 3,000 happened, on average, just once every seven years. 6. Crowds greater than 4,000 happened, on average, just once every twelve years. In order to qualify for their respective leagues, non-league Clubs have to pay the disproportionate costs of having Stadiums with a capacity in excess of 4,000, even though they rarely use that capacity, and often only use a quarter of it on a regular basis. Carthaginian
  • Score: -16

4:14pm Sun 13 Apr 14

Guy66 says...

Carthaginian wrote:
Anyway, before everyone gets too carried away, here are some basic stats from the last 25 years that Worcester City were at St Georges Lane:

1. There were 713 first team games in 9,331 days. That is one game every 13 days on average (in simple language, once a fortnight on average). Virtually no games ever in the three months between May and July.

Only on those days, two peaks can be expected. On Saturdays, around 2.15 for approx. half an hour, and around 17.00 for approx. 15 minutes.
On Tuesdays, around 7.15pm for approx. 20 minutes, and around 9.45pm for approx. 15 minutes.

1.5 hours, once a fortnight, is 1.5/336, which is 1/240, which is 0.00004 of the time.

2. The overall average attendance over the 25 years was 829.

3. There were, on average, 7 occasions per year when attendance was more than 1,000.

4. Crowds greater than 2,000 happened, on average, just once every two years.

5. Crowds greater than 3,000 happened, on average, just once every seven years.

6. Crowds greater than 4,000 happened, on average, just once every twelve years.

In order to qualify for their respective leagues, non-league Clubs have to pay the disproportionate costs of having Stadiums with a capacity in excess of 4,000, even though they rarely use that capacity, and often only use a quarter of it on a regular basis.
Great stats until you have to 'put up' with the incovienece of football matches taking away your peace and quiet. Some people chose an area based on having some tranquillity and have paid good money to get there. Why should that have any part of their lives ruined (for even a few days a month) just to support a bunch of men in shorts kicking a ball around. AND NO I am not even in the area of this prposed devleopment before people call NIMBY out!
[quote][p][bold]Carthaginian[/bold] wrote: Anyway, before everyone gets too carried away, here are some basic stats from the last 25 years that Worcester City were at St Georges Lane: 1. There were 713 first team games in 9,331 days. That is one game every 13 days on average (in simple language, once a fortnight on average). Virtually no games ever in the three months between May and July. Only on those days, two peaks can be expected. On Saturdays, around 2.15 for approx. half an hour, and around 17.00 for approx. 15 minutes. On Tuesdays, around 7.15pm for approx. 20 minutes, and around 9.45pm for approx. 15 minutes. 1.5 hours, once a fortnight, is 1.5/336, which is 1/240, which is 0.00004 of the time. 2. The overall average attendance over the 25 years was 829. 3. There were, on average, 7 occasions per year when attendance was more than 1,000. 4. Crowds greater than 2,000 happened, on average, just once every two years. 5. Crowds greater than 3,000 happened, on average, just once every seven years. 6. Crowds greater than 4,000 happened, on average, just once every twelve years. In order to qualify for their respective leagues, non-league Clubs have to pay the disproportionate costs of having Stadiums with a capacity in excess of 4,000, even though they rarely use that capacity, and often only use a quarter of it on a regular basis.[/p][/quote]Great stats until you have to 'put up' with the incovienece of football matches taking away your peace and quiet. Some people chose an area based on having some tranquillity and have paid good money to get there. Why should that have any part of their lives ruined (for even a few days a month) just to support a bunch of men in shorts kicking a ball around. AND NO I am not even in the area of this prposed devleopment before people call NIMBY out! Guy66
  • Score: 17

6:34pm Sun 13 Apr 14

worcesterlass says...

Put the bloody thing on the Park and Ride site, that's where they put the white elephants before they scrap the whole thing, isn't it?
Put the bloody thing on the Park and Ride site, that's where they put the white elephants before they scrap the whole thing, isn't it? worcesterlass
  • Score: -6

8:12pm Sun 13 Apr 14

Carthaginian says...

Guy66, sorry, I was talking about Perdiswell, Worcester. Its got eight football pitches, and has had them since WWII. Its also got a floodlit astroturf, which has been there, what 15+ years. Its probably about to get a swimming pool. It has a school. It is also about to get an M&S (and delivery lorries). It also has a Council recycling centre (what used to be called a tip).
Guy66, sorry, I was talking about Perdiswell, Worcester. Its got eight football pitches, and has had them since WWII. Its also got a floodlit astroturf, which has been there, what 15+ years. Its probably about to get a swimming pool. It has a school. It is also about to get an M&S (and delivery lorries). It also has a Council recycling centre (what used to be called a tip). Carthaginian
  • Score: 0

10:25pm Sun 13 Apr 14

Guy66 says...

Carthaginian wrote:
Guy66, sorry, I was talking about Perdiswell, Worcester. Its got eight football pitches, and has had them since WWII. Its also got a floodlit astroturf, which has been there, what 15+ years. Its probably about to get a swimming pool. It has a school. It is also about to get an M&S (and delivery lorries). It also has a Council recycling centre (what used to be called a tip).
Missing a 5000 seat stadium all of this time!!!!
[quote][p][bold]Carthaginian[/bold] wrote: Guy66, sorry, I was talking about Perdiswell, Worcester. Its got eight football pitches, and has had them since WWII. Its also got a floodlit astroturf, which has been there, what 15+ years. Its probably about to get a swimming pool. It has a school. It is also about to get an M&S (and delivery lorries). It also has a Council recycling centre (what used to be called a tip).[/p][/quote]Missing a 5000 seat stadium all of this time!!!! Guy66
  • Score: -2

10:26pm Sun 13 Apr 14

Guy66 says...

Guy66 wrote:
Carthaginian wrote:
Guy66, sorry, I was talking about Perdiswell, Worcester. Its got eight football pitches, and has had them since WWII. Its also got a floodlit astroturf, which has been there, what 15+ years. Its probably about to get a swimming pool. It has a school. It is also about to get an M&S (and delivery lorries). It also has a Council recycling centre (what used to be called a tip).
Missing a 5000 seat stadium all of this time!!!!
Missing a 5000 seat stadium all of this time!!!

And M&S is going to Blackpole retail park - where Halfords were - so not even a fator to consider here!
[quote][p][bold]Guy66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carthaginian[/bold] wrote: Guy66, sorry, I was talking about Perdiswell, Worcester. Its got eight football pitches, and has had them since WWII. Its also got a floodlit astroturf, which has been there, what 15+ years. Its probably about to get a swimming pool. It has a school. It is also about to get an M&S (and delivery lorries). It also has a Council recycling centre (what used to be called a tip).[/p][/quote]Missing a 5000 seat stadium all of this time!!!![/p][/quote]Missing a 5000 seat stadium all of this time!!! And M&S is going to Blackpole retail park - where Halfords were - so not even a fator to consider here! Guy66
  • Score: -4

8:48am Mon 14 Apr 14

Worcester Lad says...

Guy66 wrote:
Guy66 wrote:
Carthaginian wrote:
Guy66, sorry, I was talking about Perdiswell, Worcester. Its got eight football pitches, and has had them since WWII. Its also got a floodlit astroturf, which has been there, what 15+ years. Its probably about to get a swimming pool. It has a school. It is also about to get an M&S (and delivery lorries). It also has a Council recycling centre (what used to be called a tip).
Missing a 5000 seat stadium all of this time!!!!
Missing a 5000 seat stadium all of this time!!!

And M&S is going to Blackpole retail park - where Halfords were - so not even a fator to consider here!
I think that M&S will bring a lot more traffic to the area than Halfords .Also what will replace Lidel when/if they move across the road?
[quote][p][bold]Guy66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Guy66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Carthaginian[/bold] wrote: Guy66, sorry, I was talking about Perdiswell, Worcester. Its got eight football pitches, and has had them since WWII. Its also got a floodlit astroturf, which has been there, what 15+ years. Its probably about to get a swimming pool. It has a school. It is also about to get an M&S (and delivery lorries). It also has a Council recycling centre (what used to be called a tip).[/p][/quote]Missing a 5000 seat stadium all of this time!!!![/p][/quote]Missing a 5000 seat stadium all of this time!!! And M&S is going to Blackpole retail park - where Halfords were - so not even a fator to consider here![/p][/quote]I think that M&S will bring a lot more traffic to the area than Halfords .Also what will replace Lidel when/if they move across the road? Worcester Lad
  • Score: -6

9:37am Mon 14 Apr 14

Carthaginian says...

A 5,000 seat stadium? !!!
A 5,000 seat stadium? !!! Carthaginian
  • Score: -2

9:44am Mon 14 Apr 14

r-goode says...

I think people are getting a bit carried away here, a 5000 seat stadium?!
The plans are for a stadium with a CAPACITY of just over 4000 to expand to 5000. That doesn't mean it is fully seated. There is only plans originally for a 500 seated stand I believe.
This is going to be absolutely nothing like Sixways and barely even the size of what SGL was.
To relate it in simple mans terms, you could probably fit 30 people into my living room if you tried, but only 6 of those could sit down.
I think people are getting a bit carried away here, a 5000 seat stadium?! The plans are for a stadium with a CAPACITY of just over 4000 to expand to 5000. That doesn't mean it is fully seated. There is only plans originally for a 500 seated stand I believe. This is going to be absolutely nothing like Sixways and barely even the size of what SGL was. To relate it in simple mans terms, you could probably fit 30 people into my living room if you tried, but only 6 of those could sit down. r-goode
  • Score: -12

12:53pm Mon 14 Apr 14

The Curious Kumquat says...

Yeah, not in my back yard thanks :)

Traffic round Worcester is pretty rubbish but I doubt this, Lidl or M&S will make a huge amount of difference.
Yeah, not in my back yard thanks :) Traffic round Worcester is pretty rubbish but I doubt this, Lidl or M&S will make a huge amount of difference. The Curious Kumquat
  • Score: -12

1:09pm Mon 14 Apr 14

CityBlueBoy says...

On Wednesday 16th April 2014 WCFCST will be submiting the plans for a new stadium at Perdiswell.

The following night there will be a JOINT fans forum being held at Worcestershire County Cricket Club, New Road, upstairs in the Graham Hick Pavilion at 7:30pm.

The full final plan will be revealed and the next steps that will be required to ensure a future for Worcester City FC through Community Ownership will be discussed. All those interested in the clubs survival should attend.
On Wednesday 16th April 2014 WCFCST will be submiting the plans for a new stadium at Perdiswell. The following night there will be a JOINT fans forum being held at Worcestershire County Cricket Club, New Road, upstairs in the Graham Hick Pavilion at 7:30pm. The full final plan will be revealed and the next steps that will be required to ensure a future for Worcester City FC through Community Ownership will be discussed. All those interested in the clubs survival should attend. CityBlueBoy
  • Score: -17

4:15pm Mon 14 Apr 14

itsallinthe locker says...

Good luck to all associated with the planning application and I sincerely hope that all who have signed any petition objecting will come along to the forum and here a balanced view for the application.
Good luck to all associated with the planning application and I sincerely hope that all who have signed any petition objecting will come along to the forum and here a balanced view for the application. itsallinthe locker
  • Score: -13

8:05pm Mon 28 Apr 14

CYNIC_AL says...

Nice of Grayson Perry to lend his support...
Nice of Grayson Perry to lend his support... CYNIC_AL
  • Score: -3

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree