Sixways! It's an ideal spot for a new City stadium

Councillor Gareth Jones says the Sixways area could also be home to a football stadium

Councillor Gareth Jones says the Sixways area could also be home to a football stadium

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

A FORMER Mayor of Worcester has revealed his opposition to the city's football club moving to Perdiswell - and says everyone is "ignoring" a possible solution.

Councillor Gareth Jones wants the club's supporters' trust to "seriously look" at building a stadium at Sixways, next to the home of Worcester Warriors.

He says with an existing park and ride serving the rugby stadium, acres of empty land and the M5 on the doorstep, he "cannot believe" it has not been mentioned before.

It comes as campaigners protesting against a planning application to build a new ground at Perdiswell have gained 600 signatures from nearby residents.

Cllr Jones, a veteran Conservative, says the Perdiswell fields are a vital asset for the community and wants it protected.

The football club is currently exiled at Kidderminster FC's Aggborough stadium after leaving St George's Lane last year, and the supporters' trust has submitted the application for a 4,100 capacity ground.

The club has examined the possibility of actually ground sharing Sixways with Worcester Warriors, but the idea was never considered realistic as it is currently designated a rugby-only facility by the sport's authorities.

But the suggestion that the football club's trust should look at the wider Sixways landscape is an entirely new one which has not been raised before.

Cllr Jones said: "I can't believe it hasn't been mentioned before - to me it looks like the ideal solution.

"I've nothing against the club and everyone wants to see them back in Worcester but the principle of building it at Perdiswell is something I can't accept.

"If you look at Sixways all the facilities are already there, there is the park and ride, the M5, the roads, bags of space to build the stadium and lots of parking.

"There is plenty of land which is all open space. It seems logical, so why not?

"We all want to see the club back but in my view, that's where they should go."

He says the response to a residents' petition shows the strength of feeling against the Perdiswell application.

Resident Lesley Mettrick, of Drovers Way, revealed yesterday that the signatures have topped 600 in just one month.

She has helped form the 'Protect Perdiswell' action group on Facebook to drum up opposition.

"I think we can get more, we'll carry on with it," she said.

Rob Crean, secretary of Worcester City FC Supporters' Trust, said: "Lots of questions people have will be answered in the application.

"We're quite confident people's concerns will be addressed."

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

Comments (52)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:34pm Mon 12 May 14

ac_wcfc says...

What about the petition in support of the new ground at Perdiswell with over 1200 signatures?though.
What about the petition in support of the new ground at Perdiswell with over 1200 signatures?though. ac_wcfc
  • Score: 1

10:23pm Mon 12 May 14

Perfman says...

ac_wcfc wrote:
What about the petition in support of the new ground at Perdiswell with over 1200 signatures?though.
That would be 1200 eeeediots who genuinely cannot see the issues this location would cause to the local infrastructure, residents and current open spaces.

I totally agree with the ex-mayor, the ‘Worcester Boys in shorts’ club would be far better out on the edge of the city near a major junction or road with adequate parking and transport facilities. A site close to Sixways seems an ideal location to me!
[quote][p][bold]ac_wcfc[/bold] wrote: What about the petition in support of the new ground at Perdiswell with over 1200 signatures?though.[/p][/quote]That would be 1200 eeeediots who genuinely cannot see the issues this location would cause to the local infrastructure, residents and current open spaces. I totally agree with the ex-mayor, the ‘Worcester Boys in shorts’ club would be far better out on the edge of the city near a major junction or road with adequate parking and transport facilities. A site close to Sixways seems an ideal location to me! Perfman
  • Score: -10

9:06am Tue 13 May 14

Hwicce says...

St George's Lane coped with the football club and is a much smaller road with no parking. Perdiswell would be way better than that.

Sticking it out on the edge of the city will be no better than being in Kidderminster.

It's not as if its ever going to be a Premier League team and get thousands of away supporters turning up.
St George's Lane coped with the football club and is a much smaller road with no parking. Perdiswell would be way better than that. Sticking it out on the edge of the city will be no better than being in Kidderminster. It's not as if its ever going to be a Premier League team and get thousands of away supporters turning up. Hwicce
  • Score: -2

10:40am Tue 13 May 14

Perfman says...

Hwicce wrote:
St George's Lane coped with the football club and is a much smaller road with no parking. Perdiswell would be way better than that.

Sticking it out on the edge of the city will be no better than being in Kidderminster.

It's not as if its ever going to be a Premier League team and get thousands of away supporters turning up.
With a new stadium the club will work on other schemes of cash generation to support the running costs when football is not being played. So look out for concerts, guest events, fireworks etc etc as well as the football. It would be naive to believe that the 'new' stadium could fully support itself with football only. So having said that I still believe the 'edge' of Worcester is far better than using up some of our existing open public spaces.

Sixways is hardly a difficult place to get too and far closer to Worcester (in Worcester) than Kidderminster you have to admit........
[quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: St George's Lane coped with the football club and is a much smaller road with no parking. Perdiswell would be way better than that. Sticking it out on the edge of the city will be no better than being in Kidderminster. It's not as if its ever going to be a Premier League team and get thousands of away supporters turning up.[/p][/quote]With a new stadium the club will work on other schemes of cash generation to support the running costs when football is not being played. So look out for concerts, guest events, fireworks etc etc as well as the football. It would be naive to believe that the 'new' stadium could fully support itself with football only. So having said that I still believe the 'edge' of Worcester is far better than using up some of our existing open public spaces. Sixways is hardly a difficult place to get too and far closer to Worcester (in Worcester) than Kidderminster you have to admit........ Perfman
  • Score: 9

11:01am Tue 13 May 14

SazB says...

Worcester Boys in shorts club?? Think that's quite a derogatory comment, from someone who probably doesn't watch football. Average crowds last season were around 550 + so congestion etc won't be an issue. The basketball team have The Arena, rugby has Sixways and cricket club have a beautiful location next to the river. Give this Club a chance, do people not want to see a football club in Worcester? I for one do!!
Worcester Boys in shorts club?? Think that's quite a derogatory comment, from someone who probably doesn't watch football. Average crowds last season were around 550 + so congestion etc won't be an issue. The basketball team have The Arena, rugby has Sixways and cricket club have a beautiful location next to the river. Give this Club a chance, do people not want to see a football club in Worcester? I for one do!! SazB
  • Score: 4

11:16am Tue 13 May 14

Hillbilly1 says...

Perfman wrote:
Hwicce wrote:
St George's Lane coped with the football club and is a much smaller road with no parking. Perdiswell would be way better than that.

Sticking it out on the edge of the city will be no better than being in Kidderminster.

It's not as if its ever going to be a Premier League team and get thousands of away supporters turning up.
With a new stadium the club will work on other schemes of cash generation to support the running costs when football is not being played. So look out for concerts, guest events, fireworks etc etc as well as the football. It would be naive to believe that the 'new' stadium could fully support itself with football only. So having said that I still believe the 'edge' of Worcester is far better than using up some of our existing open public spaces.

Sixways is hardly a difficult place to get too and far closer to Worcester (in Worcester) than Kidderminster you have to admit........
So why have the City Council, who also need schemes of cash generation, never done this? How come there have been no concerts, guest events, fireworks at Perdiswell over the last 10 years that have caused concerns? They've missed a massive trick there, as there has been nothing to stop this happening. If Bruce Springsteen can play Roundhay Park in Leeds , which is just a park, then why not Perdiswell Park in Worcester? Actually forget a managed scheme with a modest football stadium and well maintained football pitches and other leisure facilities to benefit the people of Worcester at Perdiswell. Lets just make it a Mecca for open air concerts, not quite Glasto, but hey why not? And for that kind of event they wouldnt even have to bother about managing parking, people would find somewhere on the side of the road, its not the organisers problem!
How many concerts, guest events etc. have been held at Aggborough? Edgar Street? You're not going to make money on a concert like that unless it is in a stadium, and this plan is not for a stadium, just a very modest football ground, only just big enough to play at the present level of football. It might surprise you, but most supporters of the club do not want to see WCFC playing league football, its a different game.
[quote][p][bold]Perfman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: St George's Lane coped with the football club and is a much smaller road with no parking. Perdiswell would be way better than that. Sticking it out on the edge of the city will be no better than being in Kidderminster. It's not as if its ever going to be a Premier League team and get thousands of away supporters turning up.[/p][/quote]With a new stadium the club will work on other schemes of cash generation to support the running costs when football is not being played. So look out for concerts, guest events, fireworks etc etc as well as the football. It would be naive to believe that the 'new' stadium could fully support itself with football only. So having said that I still believe the 'edge' of Worcester is far better than using up some of our existing open public spaces. Sixways is hardly a difficult place to get too and far closer to Worcester (in Worcester) than Kidderminster you have to admit........[/p][/quote]So why have the City Council, who also need schemes of cash generation, never done this? How come there have been no concerts, guest events, fireworks at Perdiswell over the last 10 years that have caused concerns? They've missed a massive trick there, as there has been nothing to stop this happening. If Bruce Springsteen can play Roundhay Park in Leeds , which is just a park, then why not Perdiswell Park in Worcester? Actually forget a managed scheme with a modest football stadium and well maintained football pitches and other leisure facilities to benefit the people of Worcester at Perdiswell. Lets just make it a Mecca for open air concerts, not quite Glasto, but hey why not? And for that kind of event they wouldnt even have to bother about managing parking, people would find somewhere on the side of the road, its not the organisers problem! How many concerts, guest events etc. have been held at Aggborough? Edgar Street? You're not going to make money on a concert like that unless it is in a stadium, and this plan is not for a stadium, just a very modest football ground, only just big enough to play at the present level of football. It might surprise you, but most supporters of the club do not want to see WCFC playing league football, its a different game. Hillbilly1
  • Score: 0

11:46am Tue 13 May 14

Hillbilly1 says...

Perfman wrote:
ac_wcfc wrote:
What about the petition in support of the new ground at Perdiswell with over 1200 signatures?though.
That would be 1200 eeeediots who genuinely cannot see the issues this location would cause to the local infrastructure, residents and current open spaces.

I totally agree with the ex-mayor, the ‘Worcester Boys in shorts’ club would be far better out on the edge of the city near a major junction or road with adequate parking and transport facilities. A site close to Sixways seems an ideal location to me!
So you support development in the Green Belt? I agree about petitions, they are a waste of time and become a "my dad is bigger than your dad" contest. apparently 600 have signed a petition opposing the plan. Any fool can sign a petition. This is about a proper planning decision, and individual letters in support, or in opposition, mean far more. I support this scheme but wont sign a petition. Perdiswell needs regeneration to allow it to fully fulfill its role as a sports and leisure facility as laid out in Worcester City Councils Assessment PPG17. If this doesn't happen, then I fear for the future of Perdiswell Park as an open space. It is ideal housing land, similar to Drovers Way. There is an acute housing problem in Worcester, Worcester City Council cant afford the upkeep of Perdiswell Park, heaven forbid if the Football Foundation were aware that their 500,000 grant for new changing facilities was falling into a state of disrepair through lack of use.
[quote][p][bold]Perfman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ac_wcfc[/bold] wrote: What about the petition in support of the new ground at Perdiswell with over 1200 signatures?though.[/p][/quote]That would be 1200 eeeediots who genuinely cannot see the issues this location would cause to the local infrastructure, residents and current open spaces. I totally agree with the ex-mayor, the ‘Worcester Boys in shorts’ club would be far better out on the edge of the city near a major junction or road with adequate parking and transport facilities. A site close to Sixways seems an ideal location to me![/p][/quote]So you support development in the Green Belt? I agree about petitions, they are a waste of time and become a "my dad is bigger than your dad" contest. apparently 600 have signed a petition opposing the plan. Any fool can sign a petition. This is about a proper planning decision, and individual letters in support, or in opposition, mean far more. I support this scheme but wont sign a petition. Perdiswell needs regeneration to allow it to fully fulfill its role as a sports and leisure facility as laid out in Worcester City Councils Assessment PPG17. If this doesn't happen, then I fear for the future of Perdiswell Park as an open space. It is ideal housing land, similar to Drovers Way. There is an acute housing problem in Worcester, Worcester City Council cant afford the upkeep of Perdiswell Park, heaven forbid if the Football Foundation were aware that their 500,000 grant for new changing facilities was falling into a state of disrepair through lack of use. Hillbilly1
  • Score: -14

12:10pm Tue 13 May 14

Ted Elgar says...

Great idea. Destroy the green belt to spare some old amenity grassland in the centre of town.
Sixways is already a basket-case; no parking, people parking all over the place on verges.. risking life and limb walking along main roads in the dark.. walking home along the canal.. parking on verges.
Please ignore this man.
Great idea. Destroy the green belt to spare some old amenity grassland in the centre of town. Sixways is already a basket-case; no parking, people parking all over the place on verges.. risking life and limb walking along main roads in the dark.. walking home along the canal.. parking on verges. Please ignore this man. Ted Elgar
  • Score: -4

2:11pm Tue 13 May 14

Rebeldiamond says...

Sixways gets my vote too, leave our lovely open space at perdiswell alone.
Sixways gets my vote too, leave our lovely open space at perdiswell alone. Rebeldiamond
  • Score: 4

3:50pm Tue 13 May 14

Doogie 46 says...

Must admit I thought all the viable land around Sixways was already owned by the rugby club or by individuals closely connected to it.
Geographically and physically, Perdiswell would be a perfect site for WCFC to build a small (and it would be small) stadium with plenty of "lovely open space" left. Don`t remember too many people objecting to the bowling alley, the gym or the leisure centre being built on this "lovely open space" . Traffic would not be a great problem - as I have repeatedly mentioned there are many points of access other than the one in Bilford road that the locals seem convinced will be choked 24/7.
Also, the stadium will be a community asset ,not wholly owned by the football club. Perdiwell is not a designated "lovely open space" - it`s a sports facility and has been for 60 years or more and should have had a decent stadium there decades ago.
Must admit I thought all the viable land around Sixways was already owned by the rugby club or by individuals closely connected to it. Geographically and physically, Perdiswell would be a perfect site for WCFC to build a small (and it would be small) stadium with plenty of "lovely open space" left. Don`t remember too many people objecting to the bowling alley, the gym or the leisure centre being built on this "lovely open space" . Traffic would not be a great problem - as I have repeatedly mentioned there are many points of access other than the one in Bilford road that the locals seem convinced will be choked 24/7. Also, the stadium will be a community asset ,not wholly owned by the football club. Perdiwell is not a designated "lovely open space" - it`s a sports facility and has been for 60 years or more and should have had a decent stadium there decades ago. Doogie 46
  • Score: -6

5:19pm Tue 13 May 14

Perfman says...

Doogie 46 wrote:
Must admit I thought all the viable land around Sixways was already owned by the rugby club or by individuals closely connected to it.
Geographically and physically, Perdiswell would be a perfect site for WCFC to build a small (and it would be small) stadium with plenty of "lovely open space" left. Don`t remember too many people objecting to the bowling alley, the gym or the leisure centre being built on this "lovely open space" . Traffic would not be a great problem - as I have repeatedly mentioned there are many points of access other than the one in Bilford road that the locals seem convinced will be choked 24/7.
Also, the stadium will be a community asset ,not wholly owned by the football club. Perdiwell is not a designated "lovely open space" - it`s a sports facility and has been for 60 years or more and should have had a decent stadium there decades ago.
60 years without a stadium on it!

Worcester residents have become used to this space over a couple of generations. The combination of space and use is good but it won't be once a sizable section is built on.
[quote][p][bold]Doogie 46[/bold] wrote: Must admit I thought all the viable land around Sixways was already owned by the rugby club or by individuals closely connected to it. Geographically and physically, Perdiswell would be a perfect site for WCFC to build a small (and it would be small) stadium with plenty of "lovely open space" left. Don`t remember too many people objecting to the bowling alley, the gym or the leisure centre being built on this "lovely open space" . Traffic would not be a great problem - as I have repeatedly mentioned there are many points of access other than the one in Bilford road that the locals seem convinced will be choked 24/7. Also, the stadium will be a community asset ,not wholly owned by the football club. Perdiwell is not a designated "lovely open space" - it`s a sports facility and has been for 60 years or more and should have had a decent stadium there decades ago.[/p][/quote]60 years without a stadium on it! Worcester residents have become used to this space over a couple of generations. The combination of space and use is good but it won't be once a sizable section is built on. Perfman
  • Score: 12

5:24pm Tue 13 May 14

Perfman says...

Hillbilly1 wrote:
Perfman wrote:
ac_wcfc wrote:
What about the petition in support of the new ground at Perdiswell with over 1200 signatures?though.
That would be 1200 eeeediots who genuinely cannot see the issues this location would cause to the local infrastructure, residents and current open spaces.

I totally agree with the ex-mayor, the ‘Worcester Boys in shorts’ club would be far better out on the edge of the city near a major junction or road with adequate parking and transport facilities. A site close to Sixways seems an ideal location to me!
So you support development in the Green Belt? I agree about petitions, they are a waste of time and become a "my dad is bigger than your dad" contest. apparently 600 have signed a petition opposing the plan. Any fool can sign a petition. This is about a proper planning decision, and individual letters in support, or in opposition, mean far more. I support this scheme but wont sign a petition. Perdiswell needs regeneration to allow it to fully fulfill its role as a sports and leisure facility as laid out in Worcester City Councils Assessment PPG17. If this doesn't happen, then I fear for the future of Perdiswell Park as an open space. It is ideal housing land, similar to Drovers Way. There is an acute housing problem in Worcester, Worcester City Council cant afford the upkeep of Perdiswell Park, heaven forbid if the Football Foundation were aware that their 500,000 grant for new changing facilities was falling into a state of disrepair through lack of use.
Would that plan include the possibility of Sainsburys or not?

Once building starts the whole space will be eaten up over the next 5 years and it will leave no open, public space for casual leisure.

I firmly belive that placing the football site near to the Rubgy stadium would be a sensible idea. As for the green belt argument it really does not hold any water does it. We lose open playing fields or a field near Sixways. We still lose an open space. One is actively used by the locals and the other would be a purchase from the land owner.
[quote][p][bold]Hillbilly1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Perfman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ac_wcfc[/bold] wrote: What about the petition in support of the new ground at Perdiswell with over 1200 signatures?though.[/p][/quote]That would be 1200 eeeediots who genuinely cannot see the issues this location would cause to the local infrastructure, residents and current open spaces. I totally agree with the ex-mayor, the ‘Worcester Boys in shorts’ club would be far better out on the edge of the city near a major junction or road with adequate parking and transport facilities. A site close to Sixways seems an ideal location to me![/p][/quote]So you support development in the Green Belt? I agree about petitions, they are a waste of time and become a "my dad is bigger than your dad" contest. apparently 600 have signed a petition opposing the plan. Any fool can sign a petition. This is about a proper planning decision, and individual letters in support, or in opposition, mean far more. I support this scheme but wont sign a petition. Perdiswell needs regeneration to allow it to fully fulfill its role as a sports and leisure facility as laid out in Worcester City Councils Assessment PPG17. If this doesn't happen, then I fear for the future of Perdiswell Park as an open space. It is ideal housing land, similar to Drovers Way. There is an acute housing problem in Worcester, Worcester City Council cant afford the upkeep of Perdiswell Park, heaven forbid if the Football Foundation were aware that their 500,000 grant for new changing facilities was falling into a state of disrepair through lack of use.[/p][/quote]Would that plan include the possibility of Sainsburys or not? Once building starts the whole space will be eaten up over the next 5 years and it will leave no open, public space for casual leisure. I firmly belive that placing the football site near to the Rubgy stadium would be a sensible idea. As for the green belt argument it really does not hold any water does it. We lose open playing fields or a field near Sixways. We still lose an open space. One is actively used by the locals and the other would be a purchase from the land owner. Perfman
  • Score: 9

5:30pm Tue 13 May 14

Perfman says...

Hillbilly1 wrote:
Perfman wrote:
Hwicce wrote:
St George's Lane coped with the football club and is a much smaller road with no parking. Perdiswell would be way better than that.

Sticking it out on the edge of the city will be no better than being in Kidderminster.

It's not as if its ever going to be a Premier League team and get thousands of away supporters turning up.
With a new stadium the club will work on other schemes of cash generation to support the running costs when football is not being played. So look out for concerts, guest events, fireworks etc etc as well as the football. It would be naive to believe that the 'new' stadium could fully support itself with football only. So having said that I still believe the 'edge' of Worcester is far better than using up some of our existing open public spaces.

Sixways is hardly a difficult place to get too and far closer to Worcester (in Worcester) than Kidderminster you have to admit........
So why have the City Council, who also need schemes of cash generation, never done this? How come there have been no concerts, guest events, fireworks at Perdiswell over the last 10 years that have caused concerns? They've missed a massive trick there, as there has been nothing to stop this happening. If Bruce Springsteen can play Roundhay Park in Leeds , which is just a park, then why not Perdiswell Park in Worcester? Actually forget a managed scheme with a modest football stadium and well maintained football pitches and other leisure facilities to benefit the people of Worcester at Perdiswell. Lets just make it a Mecca for open air concerts, not quite Glasto, but hey why not? And for that kind of event they wouldnt even have to bother about managing parking, people would find somewhere on the side of the road, its not the organisers problem!
How many concerts, guest events etc. have been held at Aggborough? Edgar Street? You're not going to make money on a concert like that unless it is in a stadium, and this plan is not for a stadium, just a very modest football ground, only just big enough to play at the present level of football. It might surprise you, but most supporters of the club do not want to see WCFC playing league football, its a different game.
Easy to answer - Its a 5000 space stadium which might be modest but it will still be enclosed with seating? Once built it will have overheads that need to be addressed. How will WCFC manage the day to day finance and running costs. From football? I doubt it... It will be a stadium with seating. Great for other uses, easily setup. Where now its an open space which has zero overheads and almost zero running costs (I suggest grass cutting is one - hardly massive)
[quote][p][bold]Hillbilly1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Perfman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: St George's Lane coped with the football club and is a much smaller road with no parking. Perdiswell would be way better than that. Sticking it out on the edge of the city will be no better than being in Kidderminster. It's not as if its ever going to be a Premier League team and get thousands of away supporters turning up.[/p][/quote]With a new stadium the club will work on other schemes of cash generation to support the running costs when football is not being played. So look out for concerts, guest events, fireworks etc etc as well as the football. It would be naive to believe that the 'new' stadium could fully support itself with football only. So having said that I still believe the 'edge' of Worcester is far better than using up some of our existing open public spaces. Sixways is hardly a difficult place to get too and far closer to Worcester (in Worcester) than Kidderminster you have to admit........[/p][/quote]So why have the City Council, who also need schemes of cash generation, never done this? How come there have been no concerts, guest events, fireworks at Perdiswell over the last 10 years that have caused concerns? They've missed a massive trick there, as there has been nothing to stop this happening. If Bruce Springsteen can play Roundhay Park in Leeds , which is just a park, then why not Perdiswell Park in Worcester? Actually forget a managed scheme with a modest football stadium and well maintained football pitches and other leisure facilities to benefit the people of Worcester at Perdiswell. Lets just make it a Mecca for open air concerts, not quite Glasto, but hey why not? And for that kind of event they wouldnt even have to bother about managing parking, people would find somewhere on the side of the road, its not the organisers problem! How many concerts, guest events etc. have been held at Aggborough? Edgar Street? You're not going to make money on a concert like that unless it is in a stadium, and this plan is not for a stadium, just a very modest football ground, only just big enough to play at the present level of football. It might surprise you, but most supporters of the club do not want to see WCFC playing league football, its a different game.[/p][/quote]Easy to answer - Its a 5000 space stadium which might be modest but it will still be enclosed with seating? Once built it will have overheads that need to be addressed. How will WCFC manage the day to day finance and running costs. From football? I doubt it... It will be a stadium with seating. Great for other uses, easily setup. Where now its an open space which has zero overheads and almost zero running costs (I suggest grass cutting is one - hardly massive) Perfman
  • Score: 12

7:06pm Tue 13 May 14

r-goode says...

Rather embarrassing for a councillor to make these comments. Surely somebody who is in a position to represent a constituency should at least read up on facts before approaching the WN to have a say?

That aside, people are really struggling to come to terms with what exactly a 500 capacity 'stadium' really is. To put it in perspective, or to relate it to Sixways like everyone else seems to, the 'North Stand' at Sixways (behind posts without boxes) holds roughly 1500 max?

Therefore the entire amount of seating proposed in the whole 'stadium' at Perdiswell is a third of this.

People who are commenting against the proposal must be extremely naive and can surely not have read through the proposal correctly. As Rob Crean mentions at the end of the article, "We're quite confident people's concerns will be addressed."

As for the WN and Tom Edwards in particular, would it be too much to ask for a balanced argument? Perhaps reporting on the success of the petition voting in favour of the application may be a start? You could even follow it up with a story from the WCFCST's point of view and how they intend to resolve any issues local residents have?

Only suggestions, after all I think your readers deserve to hear both sides, rather than having to endure your drivel.
Rather embarrassing for a councillor to make these comments. Surely somebody who is in a position to represent a constituency should at least read up on facts before approaching the WN to have a say? That aside, people are really struggling to come to terms with what exactly a 500 capacity 'stadium' really is. To put it in perspective, or to relate it to Sixways like everyone else seems to, the 'North Stand' at Sixways (behind posts without boxes) holds roughly 1500 max? Therefore the entire amount of seating proposed in the whole 'stadium' at Perdiswell is a third of this. People who are commenting against the proposal must be extremely naive and can surely not have read through the proposal correctly. As Rob Crean mentions at the end of the article, "We're quite confident people's concerns will be addressed." As for the WN and Tom Edwards in particular, would it be too much to ask for a balanced argument? Perhaps reporting on the success of the petition voting in favour of the application may be a start? You could even follow it up with a story from the WCFCST's point of view and how they intend to resolve any issues local residents have? Only suggestions, after all I think your readers deserve to hear both sides, rather than having to endure your drivel. r-goode
  • Score: -5

7:07pm Tue 13 May 14

r-goode says...

Even I wrote capacity stadium there, which obviously meant 500 seated stadium!
Even I wrote capacity stadium there, which obviously meant 500 seated stadium! r-goode
  • Score: -8

7:16pm Tue 13 May 14

WS1991 says...

Sixways is basically an 'out of town shopping centre' like sports stadium.

It has no sole and is a plastic, new build with absolutely no character. There are no decent pubs nearby to drink in before or after the game and it is miles from anywhere meaning the only real method of transport is by car. Pretty sure this directly contradicts planning policy.

Sixways is a poorly planned stadium that can barely cope with crowds of 10,000 in terms of parking and access. God help the rugby club if they ever actually get good and pull in crowds of 15,000+. They will be in real trouble as there is simply no where to park... Building a football stadium there would only make this much worse on match days, assuming they both played on a Saturday, which I'm not sure highways would allow.

A complete non starter and garbage. Perdiswell a much, much better venue.
Sixways is basically an 'out of town shopping centre' like sports stadium. It has no sole and is a plastic, new build with absolutely no character. There are no decent pubs nearby to drink in before or after the game and it is miles from anywhere meaning the only real method of transport is by car. Pretty sure this directly contradicts planning policy. Sixways is a poorly planned stadium that can barely cope with crowds of 10,000 in terms of parking and access. God help the rugby club if they ever actually get good and pull in crowds of 15,000+. They will be in real trouble as there is simply no where to park... Building a football stadium there would only make this much worse on match days, assuming they both played on a Saturday, which I'm not sure highways would allow. A complete non starter and garbage. Perdiswell a much, much better venue. WS1991
  • Score: -9

7:30pm Tue 13 May 14

drutz1 says...

I am wondering which wide open spaces these are. Would these be the ones owned by Worcester Rugby Club and used by the Wanderers, Worcester Ladies, Colts and hundreds of Mini Juniors on a weekly basis?
I am wondering which wide open spaces these are. Would these be the ones owned by Worcester Rugby Club and used by the Wanderers, Worcester Ladies, Colts and hundreds of Mini Juniors on a weekly basis? drutz1
  • Score: 3

7:55pm Tue 13 May 14

Worcester Lad says...

For me and many others Perdiswell is the perfect answer to build a new stadium for W.C.F.C It would take up less than 1% of land which will still leave plenty of "Open Space" for the dog walkers and the few other people that use it. Drovers Way Residents I cannot see how traffic will impact on your life as no one will park then walk over a canal bridge .As it is gets dark before the football match would finish, who in their right mind would walk over an unlit field, through wet grass and possible dog mess .In my opinion most people will park as close as they can to a venue which is not Drovers Way.So residents you have nothing to fear from a new football ground and other pitches/swimming pool to benefit all ,now and in the years to come
For me and many others Perdiswell is the perfect answer to build a new stadium for W.C.F.C It would take up less than 1% of land which will still leave plenty of "Open Space" for the dog walkers and the few other people that use it. Drovers Way Residents I cannot see how traffic will impact on your life as no one will park then walk over a canal bridge .As it is gets dark before the football match would finish, who in their right mind would walk over an unlit field, through wet grass and possible dog mess .In my opinion most people will park as close as they can to a venue which is not Drovers Way.So residents you have nothing to fear from a new football ground and other pitches/swimming pool to benefit all ,now and in the years to come Worcester Lad
  • Score: -7

8:23pm Tue 13 May 14

mrwrighty says...

If I remember correctly, a number of years ago, Cecil Duckworth offered the board at the football club the opportunity to move to the fields opposite the rugby club and they turned him down. As it stands at the moment the fields surrounding six ways belong to six ways, not the council and they are used regularly for Wanderes games and as practice pitches.
If I remember correctly, a number of years ago, Cecil Duckworth offered the board at the football club the opportunity to move to the fields opposite the rugby club and they turned him down. As it stands at the moment the fields surrounding six ways belong to six ways, not the council and they are used regularly for Wanderes games and as practice pitches. mrwrighty
  • Score: 1

10:57pm Tue 13 May 14

Handcart says...

So many shouty posts and so little time to address them all!

The councillor is trying to help, folks, and besides, I am pretty sure the planners have a problem with building on playing fields (there are ules about them too) and you had really better look at alternatives first.

Building on the edge of town is the way the town grows, not by building on the spaces between the buildings.

A stadium and other facilities would take up 1% of something, but a darn site more than that proportion of the playing fields. You can't fly a kite, have a kickabout with the kids, play frisbee or teach little ones to ride a bike on the golf course.

But the Supporters Trust want Perdiswell, basically because they have no cash to do it properly. Nice try lads, but you have no answers for the lack of suitability else the application would have been accepted and not stuck on someone'sdesk while you get your facts together. You've had well over a year and still we wait for the plans you have not got sorted but are so sure will make it all ok!

The number of people turning up for matches needs to go up or they'll go bust (or so the club say in their season ticket begging leaflet), so the place gets busier and busier or it's dead cos the club goes bust.

Of course Bilford Road is the only place to enter the site, and it is not going to be choked '24/7', just badly and for a while on matchdays.

'No one will park and then walk over a canal bridge.' Eh?

It's a park. It is open, simple, sometimes soggy but valuable just as it is. It is not less valuable just because you love your football or Sixways has no soul. That's not the park's fault. Leave it alone.
So many shouty posts and so little time to address them all! The councillor is trying to help, folks, and besides, I am pretty sure the planners have a problem with building on playing fields (there are ules about them too) and you had really better look at alternatives first. Building on the edge of town is the way the town grows, not by building on the spaces between the buildings. A stadium and other facilities would take up 1% of something, but a darn site more than that proportion of the playing fields. You can't fly a kite, have a kickabout with the kids, play frisbee or teach little ones to ride a bike on the golf course. But the Supporters Trust want Perdiswell, basically because they have no cash to do it properly. Nice try lads, but you have no answers for the lack of suitability else the application would have been accepted and not stuck on someone'sdesk while you get your facts together. You've had well over a year and still we wait for the plans you have not got sorted but are so sure will make it all ok! The number of people turning up for matches needs to go up or they'll go bust (or so the club say in their season ticket begging leaflet), so the place gets busier and busier or it's dead cos the club goes bust. Of course Bilford Road is the only place to enter the site, and it is not going to be choked '24/7', just badly and for a while on matchdays. 'No one will park and then walk over a canal bridge.' Eh? It's a park. It is open, simple, sometimes soggy but valuable just as it is. It is not less valuable just because you love your football or Sixways has no soul. That's not the park's fault. Leave it alone. Handcart
  • Score: 14

11:54pm Tue 13 May 14

Perfman says...

Well put Hancart and mrwrighty you are correct. WCFC turned their nose up at the offer and now they are struggling to justify taking playing fields away from the local population....
Well put Hancart and mrwrighty you are correct. WCFC turned their nose up at the offer and now they are struggling to justify taking playing fields away from the local population.... Perfman
  • Score: 7

2:35am Wed 14 May 14

WS1991 says...

''Building on the edge of town is the way the town grows, not by building on the spaces between the buildings.''

Pretty sure it does happen actually, it's called infill development. Or are you suggesting that no space between buildings has ever been built on, ever?
''Building on the edge of town is the way the town grows, not by building on the spaces between the buildings.'' Pretty sure it does happen actually, it's called infill development. Or are you suggesting that no space between buildings has ever been built on, ever? WS1991
  • Score: -7

3:41pm Wed 14 May 14

Hillbilly1 says...

Perfman wrote:
Hillbilly1 wrote:
Perfman wrote:
ac_wcfc wrote:
What about the petition in support of the new ground at Perdiswell with over 1200 signatures?though.
That would be 1200 eeeediots who genuinely cannot see the issues this location would cause to the local infrastructure, residents and current open spaces.

I totally agree with the ex-mayor, the ‘Worcester Boys in shorts’ club would be far better out on the edge of the city near a major junction or road with adequate parking and transport facilities. A site close to Sixways seems an ideal location to me!
So you support development in the Green Belt? I agree about petitions, they are a waste of time and become a "my dad is bigger than your dad" contest. apparently 600 have signed a petition opposing the plan. Any fool can sign a petition. This is about a proper planning decision, and individual letters in support, or in opposition, mean far more. I support this scheme but wont sign a petition. Perdiswell needs regeneration to allow it to fully fulfill its role as a sports and leisure facility as laid out in Worcester City Councils Assessment PPG17. If this doesn't happen, then I fear for the future of Perdiswell Park as an open space. It is ideal housing land, similar to Drovers Way. There is an acute housing problem in Worcester, Worcester City Council cant afford the upkeep of Perdiswell Park, heaven forbid if the Football Foundation were aware that their 500,000 grant for new changing facilities was falling into a state of disrepair through lack of use.
Would that plan include the possibility of Sainsburys or not?

Once building starts the whole space will be eaten up over the next 5 years and it will leave no open, public space for casual leisure.

I firmly belive that placing the football site near to the Rubgy stadium would be a sensible idea. As for the green belt argument it really does not hold any water does it. We lose open playing fields or a field near Sixways. We still lose an open space. One is actively used by the locals and the other would be a purchase from the land owner.
No it won't, Perdiswell is a Sports and Recreational facility. building a modest football ground and managing a set of football pitches on the site, which will be available to all (as it used to be on Perdiswell) will protect Perdiswell as an open space. The alternative will be housing, or yes, maybe a retail park proposed by a corporate monster of a land developer, and nothing will protect Perdiswell from that. Are you of the opinion that the whole of the area of Perdiswell Park is going to be fenced off for the use of Worcester City FC? Unfortunately Perdiswell is not actively used, it used to home football pitches, the worlds oldest model aeroplane club, a whippet racing track, I remember watching grasstrack racing on there. None of this goes on now, its just an open dog toilet most of the time, which the City Council can ill afford to maintain.
[quote][p][bold]Perfman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hillbilly1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Perfman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ac_wcfc[/bold] wrote: What about the petition in support of the new ground at Perdiswell with over 1200 signatures?though.[/p][/quote]That would be 1200 eeeediots who genuinely cannot see the issues this location would cause to the local infrastructure, residents and current open spaces. I totally agree with the ex-mayor, the ‘Worcester Boys in shorts’ club would be far better out on the edge of the city near a major junction or road with adequate parking and transport facilities. A site close to Sixways seems an ideal location to me![/p][/quote]So you support development in the Green Belt? I agree about petitions, they are a waste of time and become a "my dad is bigger than your dad" contest. apparently 600 have signed a petition opposing the plan. Any fool can sign a petition. This is about a proper planning decision, and individual letters in support, or in opposition, mean far more. I support this scheme but wont sign a petition. Perdiswell needs regeneration to allow it to fully fulfill its role as a sports and leisure facility as laid out in Worcester City Councils Assessment PPG17. If this doesn't happen, then I fear for the future of Perdiswell Park as an open space. It is ideal housing land, similar to Drovers Way. There is an acute housing problem in Worcester, Worcester City Council cant afford the upkeep of Perdiswell Park, heaven forbid if the Football Foundation were aware that their 500,000 grant for new changing facilities was falling into a state of disrepair through lack of use.[/p][/quote]Would that plan include the possibility of Sainsburys or not? Once building starts the whole space will be eaten up over the next 5 years and it will leave no open, public space for casual leisure. I firmly belive that placing the football site near to the Rubgy stadium would be a sensible idea. As for the green belt argument it really does not hold any water does it. We lose open playing fields or a field near Sixways. We still lose an open space. One is actively used by the locals and the other would be a purchase from the land owner.[/p][/quote]No it won't, Perdiswell is a Sports and Recreational facility. building a modest football ground and managing a set of football pitches on the site, which will be available to all (as it used to be on Perdiswell) will protect Perdiswell as an open space. The alternative will be housing, or yes, maybe a retail park proposed by a corporate monster of a land developer, and nothing will protect Perdiswell from that. Are you of the opinion that the whole of the area of Perdiswell Park is going to be fenced off for the use of Worcester City FC? Unfortunately Perdiswell is not actively used, it used to home football pitches, the worlds oldest model aeroplane club, a whippet racing track, I remember watching grasstrack racing on there. None of this goes on now, its just an open dog toilet most of the time, which the City Council can ill afford to maintain. Hillbilly1
  • Score: -3

7:36pm Wed 14 May 14

Hillbilly1 says...

Handcart wrote:
So many shouty posts and so little time to address them all!

The councillor is trying to help, folks, and besides, I am pretty sure the planners have a problem with building on playing fields (there are ules about them too) and you had really better look at alternatives first.

Building on the edge of town is the way the town grows, not by building on the spaces between the buildings.

A stadium and other facilities would take up 1% of something, but a darn site more than that proportion of the playing fields. You can't fly a kite, have a kickabout with the kids, play frisbee or teach little ones to ride a bike on the golf course.

But the Supporters Trust want Perdiswell, basically because they have no cash to do it properly. Nice try lads, but you have no answers for the lack of suitability else the application would have been accepted and not stuck on someone'sdesk while you get your facts together. You've had well over a year and still we wait for the plans you have not got sorted but are so sure will make it all ok!

The number of people turning up for matches needs to go up or they'll go bust (or so the club say in their season ticket begging leaflet), so the place gets busier and busier or it's dead cos the club goes bust.

Of course Bilford Road is the only place to enter the site, and it is not going to be choked '24/7', just badly and for a while on matchdays.

'No one will park and then walk over a canal bridge.' Eh?

It's a park. It is open, simple, sometimes soggy but valuable just as it is. It is not less valuable just because you love your football or Sixways has no soul. That's not the park's fault. Leave it alone.
"you've had over a year" Well St Modwens took 5 years to get a proposal to planning, One year to get to this stage is pretty remarkable progress. We are not land developers (they'll be hovering like vultures if this plan to maintain Perdiswell as a viable open space for the City Council does not go through) Perdiswell Park will not remain, the City Council cant afford to keep it as an apoen space, the Football Foundation will want part, or all of their grant returned, and the acute housing problem will mean that planning applications will be forwarded for housing. And of course, if these are rejected, the land developers will threaten to sue the council, which the council cant afford to defend, and a deal will be struck to turn Perdiswell Park into the next Drovers Way. Don't believe it can happen? Look at the plans for housing development in the Green Network at St. Peters, look at the Retail development in the Green Network at Nunnery Way.
[quote][p][bold]Handcart[/bold] wrote: So many shouty posts and so little time to address them all! The councillor is trying to help, folks, and besides, I am pretty sure the planners have a problem with building on playing fields (there are ules about them too) and you had really better look at alternatives first. Building on the edge of town is the way the town grows, not by building on the spaces between the buildings. A stadium and other facilities would take up 1% of something, but a darn site more than that proportion of the playing fields. You can't fly a kite, have a kickabout with the kids, play frisbee or teach little ones to ride a bike on the golf course. But the Supporters Trust want Perdiswell, basically because they have no cash to do it properly. Nice try lads, but you have no answers for the lack of suitability else the application would have been accepted and not stuck on someone'sdesk while you get your facts together. You've had well over a year and still we wait for the plans you have not got sorted but are so sure will make it all ok! The number of people turning up for matches needs to go up or they'll go bust (or so the club say in their season ticket begging leaflet), so the place gets busier and busier or it's dead cos the club goes bust. Of course Bilford Road is the only place to enter the site, and it is not going to be choked '24/7', just badly and for a while on matchdays. 'No one will park and then walk over a canal bridge.' Eh? It's a park. It is open, simple, sometimes soggy but valuable just as it is. It is not less valuable just because you love your football or Sixways has no soul. That's not the park's fault. Leave it alone.[/p][/quote]"you've had over a year" Well St Modwens took 5 years to get a proposal to planning, One year to get to this stage is pretty remarkable progress. We are not land developers (they'll be hovering like vultures if this plan to maintain Perdiswell as a viable open space for the City Council does not go through) Perdiswell Park will not remain, the City Council cant afford to keep it as an apoen space, the Football Foundation will want part, or all of their grant returned, and the acute housing problem will mean that planning applications will be forwarded for housing. And of course, if these are rejected, the land developers will threaten to sue the council, which the council cant afford to defend, and a deal will be struck to turn Perdiswell Park into the next Drovers Way. Don't believe it can happen? Look at the plans for housing development in the Green Network at St. Peters, look at the Retail development in the Green Network at Nunnery Way. Hillbilly1
  • Score: -5

7:39pm Wed 14 May 14

Hillbilly1 says...

mrwrighty wrote:
If I remember correctly, a number of years ago, Cecil Duckworth offered the board at the football club the opportunity to move to the fields opposite the rugby club and they turned him down. As it stands at the moment the fields surrounding six ways belong to six ways, not the council and they are used regularly for Wanderes games and as practice pitches.
You remember incorrectly. The football club were handcuffed by contracts signed with St Modwen Developments into Nunnery Way, once that had been done, Cecil Duckworth could have paid for WCFC to move to these fields and it still couldnt happen. You are right though, Sixways belongs to Worcester Rugby, and as such, it isnt in Cecil Duckworths gift to be able to give land, or even sell land, to WCFC or WCFC Supporters Trust. Worcester Rugby do not wish to sell, do not wish to attract other sports to the site, that is their prerogative!
[quote][p][bold]mrwrighty[/bold] wrote: If I remember correctly, a number of years ago, Cecil Duckworth offered the board at the football club the opportunity to move to the fields opposite the rugby club and they turned him down. As it stands at the moment the fields surrounding six ways belong to six ways, not the council and they are used regularly for Wanderes games and as practice pitches.[/p][/quote]You remember incorrectly. The football club were handcuffed by contracts signed with St Modwen Developments into Nunnery Way, once that had been done, Cecil Duckworth could have paid for WCFC to move to these fields and it still couldnt happen. You are right though, Sixways belongs to Worcester Rugby, and as such, it isnt in Cecil Duckworths gift to be able to give land, or even sell land, to WCFC or WCFC Supporters Trust. Worcester Rugby do not wish to sell, do not wish to attract other sports to the site, that is their prerogative! Hillbilly1
  • Score: -1

7:47pm Wed 14 May 14

Hillbilly1 says...

Perfman wrote:
Hillbilly1 wrote:
Perfman wrote:
Hwicce wrote:
St George's Lane coped with the football club and is a much smaller road with no parking. Perdiswell would be way better than that.

Sticking it out on the edge of the city will be no better than being in Kidderminster.

It's not as if its ever going to be a Premier League team and get thousands of away supporters turning up.
With a new stadium the club will work on other schemes of cash generation to support the running costs when football is not being played. So look out for concerts, guest events, fireworks etc etc as well as the football. It would be naive to believe that the 'new' stadium could fully support itself with football only. So having said that I still believe the 'edge' of Worcester is far better than using up some of our existing open public spaces.

Sixways is hardly a difficult place to get too and far closer to Worcester (in Worcester) than Kidderminster you have to admit........
So why have the City Council, who also need schemes of cash generation, never done this? How come there have been no concerts, guest events, fireworks at Perdiswell over the last 10 years that have caused concerns? They've missed a massive trick there, as there has been nothing to stop this happening. If Bruce Springsteen can play Roundhay Park in Leeds , which is just a park, then why not Perdiswell Park in Worcester? Actually forget a managed scheme with a modest football stadium and well maintained football pitches and other leisure facilities to benefit the people of Worcester at Perdiswell. Lets just make it a Mecca for open air concerts, not quite Glasto, but hey why not? And for that kind of event they wouldnt even have to bother about managing parking, people would find somewhere on the side of the road, its not the organisers problem!
How many concerts, guest events etc. have been held at Aggborough? Edgar Street? You're not going to make money on a concert like that unless it is in a stadium, and this plan is not for a stadium, just a very modest football ground, only just big enough to play at the present level of football. It might surprise you, but most supporters of the club do not want to see WCFC playing league football, its a different game.
Easy to answer - Its a 5000 space stadium which might be modest but it will still be enclosed with seating? Once built it will have overheads that need to be addressed. How will WCFC manage the day to day finance and running costs. From football? I doubt it... It will be a stadium with seating. Great for other uses, easily setup. Where now its an open space which has zero overheads and almost zero running costs (I suggest grass cutting is one - hardly massive)
No it wont be enclosed with seating, it will hold the minimum number of seats allowed for football at Conference level, which is around 300, in a single stand on one side. The rest will be standing terrace only. Once built it will have overheads which will be managed by Worcester City Supporters Trust as owners of the club. Take a look at other Supporter owned clubs like FC United, AFC Telford etc. to see how they manage the finance. AFC Telford don't have concerts at the Bucks Head. They do provide facilities for school children, for community groups, for businesses, and attract a revenue stream from this. Non-league football grounds arent suitable for concerts, however the associated facilities such as conference rooms have multiple uses, and are indoor facilities. The cost of liability management at Perdiswell is high, too high for the City Council to just forget it. Where you have the general public with access over your land, you are responsible for their safety, that costs a fair amount. Maybe the Friends of Perdiswell Park should try to take ownership of the area. There's nothing stopping them.
[quote][p][bold]Perfman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hillbilly1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Perfman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: St George's Lane coped with the football club and is a much smaller road with no parking. Perdiswell would be way better than that. Sticking it out on the edge of the city will be no better than being in Kidderminster. It's not as if its ever going to be a Premier League team and get thousands of away supporters turning up.[/p][/quote]With a new stadium the club will work on other schemes of cash generation to support the running costs when football is not being played. So look out for concerts, guest events, fireworks etc etc as well as the football. It would be naive to believe that the 'new' stadium could fully support itself with football only. So having said that I still believe the 'edge' of Worcester is far better than using up some of our existing open public spaces. Sixways is hardly a difficult place to get too and far closer to Worcester (in Worcester) than Kidderminster you have to admit........[/p][/quote]So why have the City Council, who also need schemes of cash generation, never done this? How come there have been no concerts, guest events, fireworks at Perdiswell over the last 10 years that have caused concerns? They've missed a massive trick there, as there has been nothing to stop this happening. If Bruce Springsteen can play Roundhay Park in Leeds , which is just a park, then why not Perdiswell Park in Worcester? Actually forget a managed scheme with a modest football stadium and well maintained football pitches and other leisure facilities to benefit the people of Worcester at Perdiswell. Lets just make it a Mecca for open air concerts, not quite Glasto, but hey why not? And for that kind of event they wouldnt even have to bother about managing parking, people would find somewhere on the side of the road, its not the organisers problem! How many concerts, guest events etc. have been held at Aggborough? Edgar Street? You're not going to make money on a concert like that unless it is in a stadium, and this plan is not for a stadium, just a very modest football ground, only just big enough to play at the present level of football. It might surprise you, but most supporters of the club do not want to see WCFC playing league football, its a different game.[/p][/quote]Easy to answer - Its a 5000 space stadium which might be modest but it will still be enclosed with seating? Once built it will have overheads that need to be addressed. How will WCFC manage the day to day finance and running costs. From football? I doubt it... It will be a stadium with seating. Great for other uses, easily setup. Where now its an open space which has zero overheads and almost zero running costs (I suggest grass cutting is one - hardly massive)[/p][/quote]No it wont be enclosed with seating, it will hold the minimum number of seats allowed for football at Conference level, which is around 300, in a single stand on one side. The rest will be standing terrace only. Once built it will have overheads which will be managed by Worcester City Supporters Trust as owners of the club. Take a look at other Supporter owned clubs like FC United, AFC Telford etc. to see how they manage the finance. AFC Telford don't have concerts at the Bucks Head. They do provide facilities for school children, for community groups, for businesses, and attract a revenue stream from this. Non-league football grounds arent suitable for concerts, however the associated facilities such as conference rooms have multiple uses, and are indoor facilities. The cost of liability management at Perdiswell is high, too high for the City Council to just forget it. Where you have the general public with access over your land, you are responsible for their safety, that costs a fair amount. Maybe the Friends of Perdiswell Park should try to take ownership of the area. There's nothing stopping them. Hillbilly1
  • Score: -2

7:47pm Wed 14 May 14

Hillbilly1 says...

Perfman wrote:
Hillbilly1 wrote:
Perfman wrote:
Hwicce wrote:
St George's Lane coped with the football club and is a much smaller road with no parking. Perdiswell would be way better than that.

Sticking it out on the edge of the city will be no better than being in Kidderminster.

It's not as if its ever going to be a Premier League team and get thousands of away supporters turning up.
With a new stadium the club will work on other schemes of cash generation to support the running costs when football is not being played. So look out for concerts, guest events, fireworks etc etc as well as the football. It would be naive to believe that the 'new' stadium could fully support itself with football only. So having said that I still believe the 'edge' of Worcester is far better than using up some of our existing open public spaces.

Sixways is hardly a difficult place to get too and far closer to Worcester (in Worcester) than Kidderminster you have to admit........
So why have the City Council, who also need schemes of cash generation, never done this? How come there have been no concerts, guest events, fireworks at Perdiswell over the last 10 years that have caused concerns? They've missed a massive trick there, as there has been nothing to stop this happening. If Bruce Springsteen can play Roundhay Park in Leeds , which is just a park, then why not Perdiswell Park in Worcester? Actually forget a managed scheme with a modest football stadium and well maintained football pitches and other leisure facilities to benefit the people of Worcester at Perdiswell. Lets just make it a Mecca for open air concerts, not quite Glasto, but hey why not? And for that kind of event they wouldnt even have to bother about managing parking, people would find somewhere on the side of the road, its not the organisers problem!
How many concerts, guest events etc. have been held at Aggborough? Edgar Street? You're not going to make money on a concert like that unless it is in a stadium, and this plan is not for a stadium, just a very modest football ground, only just big enough to play at the present level of football. It might surprise you, but most supporters of the club do not want to see WCFC playing league football, its a different game.
Easy to answer - Its a 5000 space stadium which might be modest but it will still be enclosed with seating? Once built it will have overheads that need to be addressed. How will WCFC manage the day to day finance and running costs. From football? I doubt it... It will be a stadium with seating. Great for other uses, easily setup. Where now its an open space which has zero overheads and almost zero running costs (I suggest grass cutting is one - hardly massive)
No it wont be enclosed with seating, it will hold the minimum number of seats allowed for football at Conference level, which is around 300, in a single stand on one side. The rest will be standing terrace only. Once built it will have overheads which will be managed by Worcester City Supporters Trust as owners of the club. Take a look at other Supporter owned clubs like FC United, AFC Telford etc. to see how they manage the finance. AFC Telford don't have concerts at the Bucks Head. They do provide facilities for school children, for community groups, for businesses, and attract a revenue stream from this. Non-league football grounds arent suitable for concerts, however the associated facilities such as conference rooms have multiple uses, and are indoor facilities. The cost of liability management at Perdiswell is high, too high for the City Council to just forget it. Where you have the general public with access over your land, you are responsible for their safety, that costs a fair amount. Maybe the Friends of Perdiswell Park should try to take ownership of the area. There's nothing stopping them.
[quote][p][bold]Perfman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hillbilly1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Perfman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: St George's Lane coped with the football club and is a much smaller road with no parking. Perdiswell would be way better than that. Sticking it out on the edge of the city will be no better than being in Kidderminster. It's not as if its ever going to be a Premier League team and get thousands of away supporters turning up.[/p][/quote]With a new stadium the club will work on other schemes of cash generation to support the running costs when football is not being played. So look out for concerts, guest events, fireworks etc etc as well as the football. It would be naive to believe that the 'new' stadium could fully support itself with football only. So having said that I still believe the 'edge' of Worcester is far better than using up some of our existing open public spaces. Sixways is hardly a difficult place to get too and far closer to Worcester (in Worcester) than Kidderminster you have to admit........[/p][/quote]So why have the City Council, who also need schemes of cash generation, never done this? How come there have been no concerts, guest events, fireworks at Perdiswell over the last 10 years that have caused concerns? They've missed a massive trick there, as there has been nothing to stop this happening. If Bruce Springsteen can play Roundhay Park in Leeds , which is just a park, then why not Perdiswell Park in Worcester? Actually forget a managed scheme with a modest football stadium and well maintained football pitches and other leisure facilities to benefit the people of Worcester at Perdiswell. Lets just make it a Mecca for open air concerts, not quite Glasto, but hey why not? And for that kind of event they wouldnt even have to bother about managing parking, people would find somewhere on the side of the road, its not the organisers problem! How many concerts, guest events etc. have been held at Aggborough? Edgar Street? You're not going to make money on a concert like that unless it is in a stadium, and this plan is not for a stadium, just a very modest football ground, only just big enough to play at the present level of football. It might surprise you, but most supporters of the club do not want to see WCFC playing league football, its a different game.[/p][/quote]Easy to answer - Its a 5000 space stadium which might be modest but it will still be enclosed with seating? Once built it will have overheads that need to be addressed. How will WCFC manage the day to day finance and running costs. From football? I doubt it... It will be a stadium with seating. Great for other uses, easily setup. Where now its an open space which has zero overheads and almost zero running costs (I suggest grass cutting is one - hardly massive)[/p][/quote]No it wont be enclosed with seating, it will hold the minimum number of seats allowed for football at Conference level, which is around 300, in a single stand on one side. The rest will be standing terrace only. Once built it will have overheads which will be managed by Worcester City Supporters Trust as owners of the club. Take a look at other Supporter owned clubs like FC United, AFC Telford etc. to see how they manage the finance. AFC Telford don't have concerts at the Bucks Head. They do provide facilities for school children, for community groups, for businesses, and attract a revenue stream from this. Non-league football grounds arent suitable for concerts, however the associated facilities such as conference rooms have multiple uses, and are indoor facilities. The cost of liability management at Perdiswell is high, too high for the City Council to just forget it. Where you have the general public with access over your land, you are responsible for their safety, that costs a fair amount. Maybe the Friends of Perdiswell Park should try to take ownership of the area. There's nothing stopping them. Hillbilly1
  • Score: -4

10:06pm Wed 14 May 14

Hillbilly1 says...

Perfman wrote:
Well put Hancart and mrwrighty you are correct. WCFC turned their nose up at the offer and now they are struggling to justify taking playing fields away from the local population....
No they didnt, they could never have taken the offer, they were locked into a contract with St Modwen Developments. There was never an offer from Worcester Rugby, there was a discussion, but never an offer.
[quote][p][bold]Perfman[/bold] wrote: Well put Hancart and mrwrighty you are correct. WCFC turned their nose up at the offer and now they are struggling to justify taking playing fields away from the local population....[/p][/quote]No they didnt, they could never have taken the offer, they were locked into a contract with St Modwen Developments. There was never an offer from Worcester Rugby, there was a discussion, but never an offer. Hillbilly1
  • Score: 1

11:27pm Wed 14 May 14

mrwrighty says...

Hillbilly1 wrote:
Perfman wrote:
Well put Hancart and mrwrighty you are correct. WCFC turned their nose up at the offer and now they are struggling to justify taking playing fields away from the local population....
No they didnt, they could never have taken the offer, they were locked into a contract with St Modwen Developments. There was never an offer from Worcester Rugby, there was a discussion, but never an offer.
Dave Boddy had a meeting with Duckworth in 2006 and it was agreed in principle but WCFC turned down the offer I believe.
[quote][p][bold]Hillbilly1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Perfman[/bold] wrote: Well put Hancart and mrwrighty you are correct. WCFC turned their nose up at the offer and now they are struggling to justify taking playing fields away from the local population....[/p][/quote]No they didnt, they could never have taken the offer, they were locked into a contract with St Modwen Developments. There was never an offer from Worcester Rugby, there was a discussion, but never an offer.[/p][/quote]Dave Boddy had a meeting with Duckworth in 2006 and it was agreed in principle but WCFC turned down the offer I believe. mrwrighty
  • Score: -2

8:55am Thu 15 May 14

brooksider says...

mrwrighty wrote:
Hillbilly1 wrote:
Perfman wrote:
Well put Hancart and mrwrighty you are correct. WCFC turned their nose up at the offer and now they are struggling to justify taking playing fields away from the local population....
No they didnt, they could never have taken the offer, they were locked into a contract with St Modwen Developments. There was never an offer from Worcester Rugby, there was a discussion, but never an offer.
Dave Boddy had a meeting with Duckworth in 2006 and it was agreed in principle but WCFC turned down the offer I believe.
Cecil Duckworth said Dave Boddy refused the offer of one of the Training Grounds.
Boddy insisted there was an agreement with Duckworth for a 50/50 shared ownership of Sixways, Duckworth denies this.
The meetings happened, as you say in 2006, long before the watertight contracts were signed with St Modwen and Careys.
[quote][p][bold]mrwrighty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hillbilly1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Perfman[/bold] wrote: Well put Hancart and mrwrighty you are correct. WCFC turned their nose up at the offer and now they are struggling to justify taking playing fields away from the local population....[/p][/quote]No they didnt, they could never have taken the offer, they were locked into a contract with St Modwen Developments. There was never an offer from Worcester Rugby, there was a discussion, but never an offer.[/p][/quote]Dave Boddy had a meeting with Duckworth in 2006 and it was agreed in principle but WCFC turned down the offer I believe.[/p][/quote]Cecil Duckworth said Dave Boddy refused the offer of one of the Training Grounds. Boddy insisted there was an agreement with Duckworth for a 50/50 shared ownership of Sixways, Duckworth denies this. The meetings happened, as you say in 2006, long before the watertight contracts were signed with St Modwen and Careys. brooksider
  • Score: 2

10:24am Thu 15 May 14

Hillbilly1 says...

mrwrighty wrote:
Hillbilly1 wrote:
Perfman wrote:
Well put Hancart and mrwrighty you are correct. WCFC turned their nose up at the offer and now they are struggling to justify taking playing fields away from the local population....
No they didnt, they could never have taken the offer, they were locked into a contract with St Modwen Developments. There was never an offer from Worcester Rugby, there was a discussion, but never an offer.
Dave Boddy had a meeting with Duckworth in 2006 and it was agreed in principle but WCFC turned down the offer I believe.
You believe incorrectly, they may have met, but neither Dave Boddy or Cecil Duckworth had the authority to agree any kind of deal. And without any formal knowledge of the discussion (although I have a lot more knowledge of those discussions than you do) you are unable to know whether any "deal" was a good deal. And neither Dave Boddy or Cecil Duckworth are involved in either of the companies anymore, so it is an irrelevence. For the record Dave Boddy, together with David Hallmark and other Directors disposed of the assets of WCFC Ltd. without any consultation with shareholders of the business. Although not unlawful, this is decidedly inadviseable and was strongly challenged by those who are now trying to rescue the club.
[quote][p][bold]mrwrighty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hillbilly1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Perfman[/bold] wrote: Well put Hancart and mrwrighty you are correct. WCFC turned their nose up at the offer and now they are struggling to justify taking playing fields away from the local population....[/p][/quote]No they didnt, they could never have taken the offer, they were locked into a contract with St Modwen Developments. There was never an offer from Worcester Rugby, there was a discussion, but never an offer.[/p][/quote]Dave Boddy had a meeting with Duckworth in 2006 and it was agreed in principle but WCFC turned down the offer I believe.[/p][/quote]You believe incorrectly, they may have met, but neither Dave Boddy or Cecil Duckworth had the authority to agree any kind of deal. And without any formal knowledge of the discussion (although I have a lot more knowledge of those discussions than you do) you are unable to know whether any "deal" was a good deal. And neither Dave Boddy or Cecil Duckworth are involved in either of the companies anymore, so it is an irrelevence. For the record Dave Boddy, together with David Hallmark and other Directors disposed of the assets of WCFC Ltd. without any consultation with shareholders of the business. Although not unlawful, this is decidedly inadviseable and was strongly challenged by those who are now trying to rescue the club. Hillbilly1
  • Score: 1

10:25am Thu 15 May 14

Hillbilly1 says...

brooksider wrote:
mrwrighty wrote:
Hillbilly1 wrote:
Perfman wrote:
Well put Hancart and mrwrighty you are correct. WCFC turned their nose up at the offer and now they are struggling to justify taking playing fields away from the local population....
No they didnt, they could never have taken the offer, they were locked into a contract with St Modwen Developments. There was never an offer from Worcester Rugby, there was a discussion, but never an offer.
Dave Boddy had a meeting with Duckworth in 2006 and it was agreed in principle but WCFC turned down the offer I believe.
Cecil Duckworth said Dave Boddy refused the offer of one of the Training Grounds.
Boddy insisted there was an agreement with Duckworth for a 50/50 shared ownership of Sixways, Duckworth denies this.
The meetings happened, as you say in 2006, long before the watertight contracts were signed with St Modwen and Careys.
So even those two don't tell the same story?? That should tell you all you need to know about any "deal" at Sixways.
[quote][p][bold]brooksider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrwrighty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hillbilly1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Perfman[/bold] wrote: Well put Hancart and mrwrighty you are correct. WCFC turned their nose up at the offer and now they are struggling to justify taking playing fields away from the local population....[/p][/quote]No they didnt, they could never have taken the offer, they were locked into a contract with St Modwen Developments. There was never an offer from Worcester Rugby, there was a discussion, but never an offer.[/p][/quote]Dave Boddy had a meeting with Duckworth in 2006 and it was agreed in principle but WCFC turned down the offer I believe.[/p][/quote]Cecil Duckworth said Dave Boddy refused the offer of one of the Training Grounds. Boddy insisted there was an agreement with Duckworth for a 50/50 shared ownership of Sixways, Duckworth denies this. The meetings happened, as you say in 2006, long before the watertight contracts were signed with St Modwen and Careys.[/p][/quote]So even those two don't tell the same story?? That should tell you all you need to know about any "deal" at Sixways. Hillbilly1
  • Score: 0

11:10am Thu 15 May 14

liketoknow says...

it also tells you a lot about why Worcester City are in this predicament now
it also tells you a lot about why Worcester City are in this predicament now liketoknow
  • Score: 5

12:36pm Thu 15 May 14

Worcester Lad says...

liketoknow wrote:
it also tells you a lot about why Worcester City are in this predicament now
Quite right,and now something is trying to be done about it people start knocking the club and it's supporters.
[quote][p][bold]liketoknow[/bold] wrote: it also tells you a lot about why Worcester City are in this predicament now[/p][/quote]Quite right,and now something is trying to be done about it people start knocking the club and it's supporters. Worcester Lad
  • Score: -3

1:47pm Thu 15 May 14

Carthaginian says...

So, Warriors need some more capital cash so they can (deposit it) up the wall trying to get back into the Premiership - and everyone else must suddenly dance to their tune, aided by opiniated headlines and selective comments from their fans/agents. There doesn't seem to be any other cause to warrant such a headline.
So, Warriors need some more capital cash so they can (deposit it) up the wall trying to get back into the Premiership - and everyone else must suddenly dance to their tune, aided by opiniated headlines and selective comments from their fans/agents. There doesn't seem to be any other cause to warrant such a headline. Carthaginian
  • Score: -4

1:53pm Thu 15 May 14

Carthaginian says...

If the paper wants to use such a headline, attribute it to someone (eg Former mayor says), or it looks like its the opinion of the Worcester News. And not one from the regular Worcester City reporter, but from another with close/intimate contacts to another sporting Club/potential beneficiary of what is being headlined.
If the paper wants to use such a headline, attribute it to someone (eg Former mayor says), or it looks like its the opinion of the Worcester News. And not one from the regular Worcester City reporter, but from another with close/intimate contacts to another sporting Club/potential beneficiary of what is being headlined. Carthaginian
  • Score: 0

3:52pm Thu 15 May 14

Hillbilly1 says...

liketoknow wrote:
it also tells you a lot about why Worcester City are in this predicament now
It certainly does, luckily those who left the club in this predicament have long left the scene. Now it is for the supporters to pick up the wreckage. Never again will Directors be able to cosy up with property developers, who basically ate up the club and spat it out after it had been used and abused. The whole episode cost WCFC Ltd, their whole asset base, once valued at over 7 million pounds! What happened was horrific, many of us pointed out what would happen back 7 years ago, and it did happen, whilst the likes of the Worcester News decided to sit on the fence. A change in constitution of the club, and a move to a supporter owned club will safeguard the future. Its worked at AFC Wimbledon, AFC Telford, Lewes FC, FC United, it can work with WCFC. Putting WCFC at the heart of the community, that is, schools, groups, business and residents of the City, will contribute massive benefit. Just ask Lee Carter at AFC Telford how the resident of Telford have benefitted from a fan owned rejuvenated Bucks Head ground.
[quote][p][bold]liketoknow[/bold] wrote: it also tells you a lot about why Worcester City are in this predicament now[/p][/quote]It certainly does, luckily those who left the club in this predicament have long left the scene. Now it is for the supporters to pick up the wreckage. Never again will Directors be able to cosy up with property developers, who basically ate up the club and spat it out after it had been used and abused. The whole episode cost WCFC Ltd, their whole asset base, once valued at over 7 million pounds! What happened was horrific, many of us pointed out what would happen back 7 years ago, and it did happen, whilst the likes of the Worcester News decided to sit on the fence. A change in constitution of the club, and a move to a supporter owned club will safeguard the future. Its worked at AFC Wimbledon, AFC Telford, Lewes FC, FC United, it can work with WCFC. Putting WCFC at the heart of the community, that is, schools, groups, business and residents of the City, will contribute massive benefit. Just ask Lee Carter at AFC Telford how the resident of Telford have benefitted from a fan owned rejuvenated Bucks Head ground. Hillbilly1
  • Score: -2

3:56pm Thu 15 May 14

Hillbilly1 says...

Handcart wrote:
So many shouty posts and so little time to address them all!

The councillor is trying to help, folks, and besides, I am pretty sure the planners have a problem with building on playing fields (there are ules about them too) and you had really better look at alternatives first.

Building on the edge of town is the way the town grows, not by building on the spaces between the buildings.

A stadium and other facilities would take up 1% of something, but a darn site more than that proportion of the playing fields. You can't fly a kite, have a kickabout with the kids, play frisbee or teach little ones to ride a bike on the golf course.

But the Supporters Trust want Perdiswell, basically because they have no cash to do it properly. Nice try lads, but you have no answers for the lack of suitability else the application would have been accepted and not stuck on someone'sdesk while you get your facts together. You've had well over a year and still we wait for the plans you have not got sorted but are so sure will make it all ok!

The number of people turning up for matches needs to go up or they'll go bust (or so the club say in their season ticket begging leaflet), so the place gets busier and busier or it's dead cos the club goes bust.

Of course Bilford Road is the only place to enter the site, and it is not going to be choked '24/7', just badly and for a while on matchdays.

'No one will park and then walk over a canal bridge.' Eh?

It's a park. It is open, simple, sometimes soggy but valuable just as it is. It is not less valuable just because you love your football or Sixways has no soul. That's not the park's fault. Leave it alone.
Its not a park, its a sports and recreation facility, a sub-regional sports hub. Nowhere will you find it designated as a park.
[quote][p][bold]Handcart[/bold] wrote: So many shouty posts and so little time to address them all! The councillor is trying to help, folks, and besides, I am pretty sure the planners have a problem with building on playing fields (there are ules about them too) and you had really better look at alternatives first. Building on the edge of town is the way the town grows, not by building on the spaces between the buildings. A stadium and other facilities would take up 1% of something, but a darn site more than that proportion of the playing fields. You can't fly a kite, have a kickabout with the kids, play frisbee or teach little ones to ride a bike on the golf course. But the Supporters Trust want Perdiswell, basically because they have no cash to do it properly. Nice try lads, but you have no answers for the lack of suitability else the application would have been accepted and not stuck on someone'sdesk while you get your facts together. You've had well over a year and still we wait for the plans you have not got sorted but are so sure will make it all ok! The number of people turning up for matches needs to go up or they'll go bust (or so the club say in their season ticket begging leaflet), so the place gets busier and busier or it's dead cos the club goes bust. Of course Bilford Road is the only place to enter the site, and it is not going to be choked '24/7', just badly and for a while on matchdays. 'No one will park and then walk over a canal bridge.' Eh? It's a park. It is open, simple, sometimes soggy but valuable just as it is. It is not less valuable just because you love your football or Sixways has no soul. That's not the park's fault. Leave it alone.[/p][/quote]Its not a park, its a sports and recreation facility, a sub-regional sports hub. Nowhere will you find it designated as a park. Hillbilly1
  • Score: -3

4:00pm Thu 15 May 14

Worcester Lad says...

Wouldn't it be nice if those for and against the football stadium could cooperate and come to an agreement Surely there is room for both?
Wouldn't it be nice if those for and against the football stadium could cooperate and come to an agreement Surely there is room for both? Worcester Lad
  • Score: 0

6:30pm Thu 15 May 14

Carthaginian says...

I think Councillor Thomas does agree ... he says the Football Club should be IN Worcester, near an existing park and ride, where there are acres of empty land, and that the Perdiswell fields are a vital asset for the community and wants it protected - I hope he means as USEABLE football pitches, not as a dog toilet, or the SSSI they are becoming. Alongside an existing sports facility and a major investment in a swimming pool - why wouldn't he argue that be at Sixways as well then? Is there a petition against it being at Perdiswell? If not, why not.
I think Councillor Thomas does agree ... he says the Football Club should be IN Worcester, near an existing park and ride, where there are acres of empty land, and that the Perdiswell fields are a vital asset for the community and wants it protected - I hope he means as USEABLE football pitches, not as a dog toilet, or the SSSI they are becoming. Alongside an existing sports facility and a major investment in a swimming pool - why wouldn't he argue that be at Sixways as well then? Is there a petition against it being at Perdiswell? If not, why not. Carthaginian
  • Score: -2

8:04pm Thu 15 May 14

Hillbilly1 says...

There is a petition against it being Perdiswell, over 600 signatures. I've never seen a petition really do anything other than be part of a beauty parade, hardly worth the paper they're written on.
There is a petition against it being Perdiswell, over 600 signatures. I've never seen a petition really do anything other than be part of a beauty parade, hardly worth the paper they're written on. Hillbilly1
  • Score: -1

9:38am Fri 16 May 14

Carthaginian says...

So, there is a petition against the swimming pool being on Perdiswell? That is what I was asking.
So, there is a petition against the swimming pool being on Perdiswell? That is what I was asking. Carthaginian
  • Score: 0

10:37am Fri 16 May 14

Hillbilly1 says...

Carthaginian wrote:
So, there is a petition against the swimming pool being on Perdiswell? That is what I was asking.
Oh no, they are in support of the swimming pool - go figure!
[quote][p][bold]Carthaginian[/bold] wrote: So, there is a petition against the swimming pool being on Perdiswell? That is what I was asking.[/p][/quote]Oh no, they are in support of the swimming pool - go figure! Hillbilly1
  • Score: 0

2:04pm Fri 16 May 14

Worcester Lad says...

One Councillor standing for election want's to protect the site and is against the football club, but is, for a swimming pool . How hypercritical is that ?
One Councillor standing for election want's to protect the site and is against the football club, but is, for a swimming pool . How hypercritical is that ? Worcester Lad
  • Score: -1

11:02pm Fri 16 May 14

Perfman says...

Worcester Lad wrote:
One Councillor standing for election want's to protect the site and is against the football club, but is, for a swimming pool . How hypercritical is that ?
The swimming pool is an extension of an existing building while the '"kids in shorts club" is a new build. Fairly easy to differentiate between the two for any sane person....
[quote][p][bold]Worcester Lad[/bold] wrote: One Councillor standing for election want's to protect the site and is against the football club, but is, for a swimming pool . How hypercritical is that ?[/p][/quote]The swimming pool is an extension of an existing building while the '"kids in shorts club" is a new build. Fairly easy to differentiate between the two for any sane person.... Perfman
  • Score: 0

10:21am Sat 17 May 14

Worcester Lad says...

Perfman wrote:
Worcester Lad wrote:
One Councillor standing for election want's to protect the site and is against the football club, but is, for a swimming pool . How hypercritical is that ?
The swimming pool is an extension of an existing building while the '"kids in shorts club" is a new build. Fairly easy to differentiate between the two for any sane person....
Yes you are quite right it is an extension, so how much "Green Space" will that take up .It does not matter how little or how much it is still building on the site, then what will be the next extension ?
[quote][p][bold]Perfman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Worcester Lad[/bold] wrote: One Councillor standing for election want's to protect the site and is against the football club, but is, for a swimming pool . How hypercritical is that ?[/p][/quote]The swimming pool is an extension of an existing building while the '"kids in shorts club" is a new build. Fairly easy to differentiate between the two for any sane person....[/p][/quote]Yes you are quite right it is an extension, so how much "Green Space" will that take up .It does not matter how little or how much it is still building on the site, then what will be the next extension ? Worcester Lad
  • Score: 0

2:46pm Mon 19 May 14

ushmush83 says...

The current 'lovely space' is actually a pot hole ridden dump. It is only good for annoying dog walkers who let their dog roam about scaring kids, cr*p everywhere and get in the way of golfers.

Under the new plans we will have an all-weather pitch and 3 new grass pitches, which we could actually call a lovely space. It would become a plush sporting complex rather than the poorly run, stinking dump that it is now.

So, if you're objecting to it, you basically like walking your dog on this land, thereby preventing people from enjoying their sports.
The current 'lovely space' is actually a pot hole ridden dump. It is only good for annoying dog walkers who let their dog roam about scaring kids, cr*p everywhere and get in the way of golfers. Under the new plans we will have an all-weather pitch and 3 new grass pitches, which we could actually call a lovely space. It would become a plush sporting complex rather than the poorly run, stinking dump that it is now. So, if you're objecting to it, you basically like walking your dog on this land, thereby preventing people from enjoying their sports. ushmush83
  • Score: 1

11:25pm Tue 27 May 14

Brummagem Bertie says...

An article and 47 comments and still neither the Councillor nor any of his supporters can actually tell anyone where all this spare land at Sixways is actually located.

Did the reporter not think it would be a good idea to nail that one down when writing the story? Silly me, this is the WN.

So all we have is an out of touch councillor pretending that there is an easy peasy solution to a longstanding problem and telling his constituents what they want to hear - how long before he defects to UKIP?
An article and 47 comments and still neither the Councillor nor any of his supporters can actually tell anyone where all this spare land at Sixways is actually located. Did the reporter not think it would be a good idea to nail that one down when writing the story? Silly me, this is the WN. So all we have is an out of touch councillor pretending that there is an easy peasy solution to a longstanding problem and telling his constituents what they want to hear - how long before he defects to UKIP? Brummagem Bertie
  • Score: -2

5:43pm Thu 5 Jun 14

perdiswellpain says...

Hwicce wrote:
St George's Lane coped with the football club and is a much smaller road with no parking. Perdiswell would be way better than that.

Sticking it out on the edge of the city will be no better than being in Kidderminster.

It's not as if its ever going to be a Premier League team and get thousands of away supporters turning up.
The ideal place for a football club is not perdiswell. The tip has queues of traffic past Kingston avenue most weekends, And if the swimming pool gets the go-ahead at perdiswell. the infrastructure will not be able to take the amount of generated traffic. And we can all remember the inconsiderate parking by fans in the surrounding roads at st georges lane, Imagine what it would be like at perdiswell terrible. The club should be looking at locating the football stadium at sixways near the rugby, All the infrastructure is in place to cope with the football and there is the park and ride for local fans and motorway for visiting fans. The club needs to relocate to a site they can afford and not have to be bailed out by the council letting them have land on the cheap in an area where nobody wants it
[quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: St George's Lane coped with the football club and is a much smaller road with no parking. Perdiswell would be way better than that. Sticking it out on the edge of the city will be no better than being in Kidderminster. It's not as if its ever going to be a Premier League team and get thousands of away supporters turning up.[/p][/quote]The ideal place for a football club is not perdiswell. The tip has queues of traffic past Kingston avenue most weekends, And if the swimming pool gets the go-ahead at perdiswell. the infrastructure will not be able to take the amount of generated traffic. And we can all remember the inconsiderate parking by fans in the surrounding roads at st georges lane, Imagine what it would be like at perdiswell terrible. The club should be looking at locating the football stadium at sixways near the rugby, All the infrastructure is in place to cope with the football and there is the park and ride for local fans and motorway for visiting fans. The club needs to relocate to a site they can afford and not have to be bailed out by the council letting them have land on the cheap in an area where nobody wants it perdiswellpain
  • Score: 0

6:08pm Thu 5 Jun 14

perdiswellpain says...

Worcester Lad wrote:
Perfman wrote:
Worcester Lad wrote:
One Councillor standing for election want's to protect the site and is against the football club, but is, for a swimming pool . How hypercritical is that ?
The swimming pool is an extension of an existing building while the '"kids in shorts club" is a new build. Fairly easy to differentiate between the two for any sane person....
Yes you are quite right it is an extension, so how much "Green Space" will that take up .It does not matter how little or how much it is still building on the site, then what will be the next extension ?
The swimming pool will be available for use by everyone for ever.. If the football gets up there how long before the pitches are not available for everyone to use and just for use by the football club. It wont be long once they get there feet under the table believe me
[quote][p][bold]Worcester Lad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Perfman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Worcester Lad[/bold] wrote: One Councillor standing for election want's to protect the site and is against the football club, but is, for a swimming pool . How hypercritical is that ?[/p][/quote]The swimming pool is an extension of an existing building while the '"kids in shorts club" is a new build. Fairly easy to differentiate between the two for any sane person....[/p][/quote]Yes you are quite right it is an extension, so how much "Green Space" will that take up .It does not matter how little or how much it is still building on the site, then what will be the next extension ?[/p][/quote]The swimming pool will be available for use by everyone for ever.. If the football gets up there how long before the pitches are not available for everyone to use and just for use by the football club. It wont be long once they get there feet under the table believe me perdiswellpain
  • Score: 0

12:39am Sun 8 Jun 14

Brummagem Bertie says...

perdiswellpain wrote:
Hwicce wrote:
St George's Lane coped with the football club and is a much smaller road with no parking. Perdiswell would be way better than that.

Sticking it out on the edge of the city will be no better than being in Kidderminster.

It's not as if its ever going to be a Premier League team and get thousands of away supporters turning up.
The ideal place for a football club is not perdiswell. The tip has queues of traffic past Kingston avenue most weekends, And if the swimming pool gets the go-ahead at perdiswell. the infrastructure will not be able to take the amount of generated traffic. And we can all remember the inconsiderate parking by fans in the surrounding roads at st georges lane, Imagine what it would be like at perdiswell terrible. The club should be looking at locating the football stadium at sixways near the rugby, All the infrastructure is in place to cope with the football and there is the park and ride for local fans and motorway for visiting fans. The club needs to relocate to a site they can afford and not have to be bailed out by the council letting them have land on the cheap in an area where nobody wants it
perdiswellpain, please enlighten us all as to where exactly the football club should be locating at Sixways? Where is there the room to build even the modest stadium that the football club need? And are you sure that Wychavon would even give it permission? Or aren't such practicalities allowed to get in the way of your simplistic solutions?

As for your objections over locating at Perdiswell:

1. There are entrances to Perdiswell other than the one opposite the tip;
2. There will be plenty of car parking at Perdiswell once the Park and Ride closes;
3. Given the financial straits the City Council are in it seems it might be more a case of the football club bailing them out;
4. Contrary to nobody wanting the football club at Perdiswell, there are many hundreds, if not thousands of people who want to see the football club get a new ground there.

Still, best not let any facts get in the way of a bit of nimbyism, eh?
[quote][p][bold]perdiswellpain[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hwicce[/bold] wrote: St George's Lane coped with the football club and is a much smaller road with no parking. Perdiswell would be way better than that. Sticking it out on the edge of the city will be no better than being in Kidderminster. It's not as if its ever going to be a Premier League team and get thousands of away supporters turning up.[/p][/quote]The ideal place for a football club is not perdiswell. The tip has queues of traffic past Kingston avenue most weekends, And if the swimming pool gets the go-ahead at perdiswell. the infrastructure will not be able to take the amount of generated traffic. And we can all remember the inconsiderate parking by fans in the surrounding roads at st georges lane, Imagine what it would be like at perdiswell terrible. The club should be looking at locating the football stadium at sixways near the rugby, All the infrastructure is in place to cope with the football and there is the park and ride for local fans and motorway for visiting fans. The club needs to relocate to a site they can afford and not have to be bailed out by the council letting them have land on the cheap in an area where nobody wants it[/p][/quote]perdiswellpain, please enlighten us all as to where exactly the football club should be locating at Sixways? Where is there the room to build even the modest stadium that the football club need? And are you sure that Wychavon would even give it permission? Or aren't such practicalities allowed to get in the way of your simplistic solutions? As for your objections over locating at Perdiswell: 1. There are entrances to Perdiswell other than the one opposite the tip; 2. There will be plenty of car parking at Perdiswell once the Park and Ride closes; 3. Given the financial straits the City Council are in it seems it might be more a case of the football club bailing them out; 4. Contrary to nobody wanting the football club at Perdiswell, there are many hundreds, if not thousands of people who want to see the football club get a new ground there. Still, best not let any facts get in the way of a bit of nimbyism, eh? Brummagem Bertie
  • Score: 0

12:47am Sun 8 Jun 14

Brummagem Bertie says...

perdiswellpain wrote:
Worcester Lad wrote:
Perfman wrote:
Worcester Lad wrote:
One Councillor standing for election want's to protect the site and is against the football club, but is, for a swimming pool . How hypercritical is that ?
The swimming pool is an extension of an existing building while the '"kids in shorts club" is a new build. Fairly easy to differentiate between the two for any sane person....
Yes you are quite right it is an extension, so how much "Green Space" will that take up .It does not matter how little or how much it is still building on the site, then what will be the next extension ?
The swimming pool will be available for use by everyone for ever.. If the football gets up there how long before the pitches are not available for everyone to use and just for use by the football club. It wont be long once they get there feet under the table believe me
Why should anyone believe your prejudiced, ill-informed guesswork?

It's not beyond the wit of even the City Council's lawyers to build into any lease legally binding clauses guaranteeing community use.

Ditto with the planning permission.

The football will also be seeking grant funding from various bodies. It is normally a condition of such grants that community use is guaranteed.

It will be in the interests of the football club to provide community access to the other pitches because:-
a) they can charge for it, so raising revenue;
b) those who use it might be tempted back to watch a match, thus generating more income;
c) through running coaching schemes and the like they might actually be able to develop their own players, who want and are good enough to play for their home town club.
[quote][p][bold]perdiswellpain[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Worcester Lad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Perfman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Worcester Lad[/bold] wrote: One Councillor standing for election want's to protect the site and is against the football club, but is, for a swimming pool . How hypercritical is that ?[/p][/quote]The swimming pool is an extension of an existing building while the '"kids in shorts club" is a new build. Fairly easy to differentiate between the two for any sane person....[/p][/quote]Yes you are quite right it is an extension, so how much "Green Space" will that take up .It does not matter how little or how much it is still building on the site, then what will be the next extension ?[/p][/quote]The swimming pool will be available for use by everyone for ever.. If the football gets up there how long before the pitches are not available for everyone to use and just for use by the football club. It wont be long once they get there feet under the table believe me[/p][/quote]Why should anyone believe your prejudiced, ill-informed guesswork? It's not beyond the wit of even the City Council's lawyers to build into any lease legally binding clauses guaranteeing community use. Ditto with the planning permission. The football will also be seeking grant funding from various bodies. It is normally a condition of such grants that community use is guaranteed. It will be in the interests of the football club to provide community access to the other pitches because:- a) they can charge for it, so raising revenue; b) those who use it might be tempted back to watch a match, thus generating more income; c) through running coaching schemes and the like they might actually be able to develop their own players, who want and are good enough to play for their home town club. Brummagem Bertie
  • Score: 0

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