Supporters make plans for City stadium at Perdiswell

Worcester News: Supporters make plans for City stadium at Perdiswell Supporters make plans for City stadium at Perdiswell

AN ambitious scheme to build a new stadium at Perdiswell has been put forward by Worcester City Football Club’s Supporters’ Trust.

The group want to construct a ground next to the leisure centre in Bilford Road for use by Worcester City, their youth teams and community sides, such as schools.

Plans, which were shown to trust members last night, are already at an advanced stage with designs ready to be submitted to Worcester City Council within days.

The ground, which could be ready by the end of 2015, would have a capacity of 4,130, including a 500-seater stand, while proposals also feature a 3G all-weather floodlit surface and maintainance of exisiting pitches.

It would be built alongside the proposed new swimming pool and gym on land next to the existing leisure entre, which is set to be demolished in 2016.

Funding for a stadium, expected to cost in the region of £2million, would come from grants, such as the Football Foundation, Football Stadia Improvement Fund and Sport England, but the trust could have to find half themselves.

They want to launch a community shares scheme, similar to that run by FC United of Manchester, to allow people to invest in the project.

Discussions have been held with the council, while the plans are also being backed by Supporters Direct, the national body overseeing supporters’ trusts.

The trust want to build the ground because they don’t believe the football club’s proposed new home at Nunnery Way will ever come to fruition.

Developers St Modwen have had planning permission for more than a year but the Birmingham-based firm have until 2017 to start work.

City are due to leave St George’s Lane, their home of 108 years, in June when it will be pulled down for housing by Careys New Homes.

A deal to share at Kidderminster Harriers’ Aggborough stadium from the start of next season is set to be agreed shortly.

A trust spokesman said: “This idea gives some hope to the future of Worcester City but the application is the easy bit, raising the money will be difficult.

“If the people of Worcester want to have a club they need to get behind the trust to make it happen.”

The football club have already put £1.26million towards the Nunnery Way development, in land and infrastructure costs, but would get that back if nothing has been built by the time the contract with St Modwen expires in four years’ time.

They are also set to face a six-figure capital gains tax bill in December on the sale of the Lane.

* What do you think? Send your views to sport@worcesternews.co.uk

Comments (47)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:25am Sat 26 Jan 13

adecrean says...

It's an ambitious plan - but frankly the only viable way of City having a footballing future in the city of Worcester

We should all get behind this - both in spirit and financially
It's an ambitious plan - but frankly the only viable way of City having a footballing future in the city of Worcester We should all get behind this - both in spirit and financially adecrean

10:02am Sat 26 Jan 13

Worcester Lad says...

Not a bad idea at all,one i would support ,let's hope that the council would to?.It could be real asset for the City of Worcester and surrounding area's.
Not a bad idea at all,one i would support ,let's hope that the council would to?.It could be real asset for the City of Worcester and surrounding area's. Worcester Lad

10:39am Sat 26 Jan 13

Archie Claines says...

At last a sensible plan for WCFC. The Nunnery Way plan was a shambles. This will be difficult but at least it will save the club. Well done all who have been involved.
At last a sensible plan for WCFC. The Nunnery Way plan was a shambles. This will be difficult but at least it will save the club. Well done all who have been involved. Archie Claines

11:25am Sat 26 Jan 13

itsallinthe locker says...

The best news I have heard in ages regarding a ground move. A sensible well thought through plan which I will support and my hope is that all interested in the future of football for the City and community will get behind this both with financial and vocal support.
The best news I have heard in ages regarding a ground move. A sensible well thought through plan which I will support and my hope is that all interested in the future of football for the City and community will get behind this both with financial and vocal support. itsallinthe locker

11:31am Sat 26 Jan 13

Andrew Guy says...

What a wonderful and inspiring contrast to the cynical carpetbagging of WCFC by big business and its henchmen!
-
The intention of those behind the now "dead-in-the-water" Nunnery Way plan was development of protected greenfield land.
-
“The football stadium {on Nunnery Way} is the catalyst for the 20 acre development…”
(Anthony Glossop, Chairman of St Modwen Properties PLC, Press Conference, St George’s Lane, 4 October 2007)
-
This new Perdiswell plan from the Supporters' Trust is both realistic and achievable and, more importantly, of football for football by football.
-
The Supporters' Trust has my full support and trust.
What a wonderful and inspiring contrast to the cynical carpetbagging of WCFC by big business and its henchmen! - The intention of those behind the now "dead-in-the-water" Nunnery Way plan was development of protected greenfield land. - “The football stadium {on Nunnery Way} is the catalyst for the 20 acre development…” (Anthony Glossop, Chairman of St Modwen Properties PLC, Press Conference, St George’s Lane, 4 October 2007) - This new Perdiswell plan from the Supporters' Trust is both realistic and achievable and, more importantly, of football for football by football. - The Supporters' Trust has my full support and trust. Andrew Guy

11:47am Sat 26 Jan 13

Hillbilly1 says...

This scheme is about more than just football, it is about sport in the community. It is about taking a number of poorly used, and poorly maintained sporting facilities, and providing a managable integrated community sports hub. Football will be predominant use, but not just 11 a side. Rule changes mean there is a desperate need for 9 a side pitches, and these will be incorporated. An all year round 3G facility will be included, and the football pitches will have other summer uses too. Perdiswell sports centre is terribly under-utilised, Sansome Walk swimming baths are outdated and in need of total refurbishment or knocked down. A single integrated sports hub solves many City Council sports problems, and the Supporters Trust can provide a mechanism for managing the complex, as well as providing shared facilities to reduce overhead. Its a brilliantly thought out proposal, utilising an existing sporting facility, without being beholdent to a commercial property developer who has no interest whatsoever in the fate of a football club.
This scheme is about more than just football, it is about sport in the community. It is about taking a number of poorly used, and poorly maintained sporting facilities, and providing a managable integrated community sports hub. Football will be predominant use, but not just 11 a side. Rule changes mean there is a desperate need for 9 a side pitches, and these will be incorporated. An all year round 3G facility will be included, and the football pitches will have other summer uses too. Perdiswell sports centre is terribly under-utilised, Sansome Walk swimming baths are outdated and in need of total refurbishment or knocked down. A single integrated sports hub solves many City Council sports problems, and the Supporters Trust can provide a mechanism for managing the complex, as well as providing shared facilities to reduce overhead. Its a brilliantly thought out proposal, utilising an existing sporting facility, without being beholdent to a commercial property developer who has no interest whatsoever in the fate of a football club. Hillbilly1

12:13pm Sat 26 Jan 13

upton kid says...

Great idea.
Has got my backing.
What's the next stage.
Great idea. Has got my backing. What's the next stage. upton kid

1:07pm Sat 26 Jan 13

Ajworcs says...

How are you going to manage the traffic flow of 2 sports centres, perdiswell park a swimming pool tip and this?! The whole project including pool, sports centre and football club should go to nunnery way with a new park and ride site. Nice idea in theory but there is simply not enough space.
How are you going to manage the traffic flow of 2 sports centres, perdiswell park a swimming pool tip and this?! The whole project including pool, sports centre and football club should go to nunnery way with a new park and ride site. Nice idea in theory but there is simply not enough space. Ajworcs

1:47pm Sat 26 Jan 13

itsallinthe locker says...

Park and ride on Droitwich Road
Park and ride on Droitwich Road itsallinthe locker

3:15pm Sat 26 Jan 13

Hillbilly1 says...

Ajworcs wrote:
How are you going to manage the traffic flow of 2 sports centres, perdiswell park a swimming pool tip and this?! The whole project including pool, sports centre and football club should go to nunnery way with a new park and ride site. Nice idea in theory but there is simply not enough space.
2 sports centres? There will only be one sports centre, like there is at the moment, there will be a swimming pool attached to the sports centre, which might get the traffic flow close to where it was before Perdiswell sports centre fell out of favour. There are already football pitches being used over the weekend, so that traffic will be the same, and the main football traffic will only increase this on matchdays. but with park and ride already there, and the ability to use the "park" bit of park and ride for parking on matchdays, this will not add greatly to the traffic flow, if at all.
This scheme is well passed theory stage, with both the ST plans and the City Council swimming pool plans.
In terms of space, Perdiswell covers more acreage than the whole of the Nunnery Way site, and 75% of Nunnery Way is going to be a retail park!
[quote][p][bold]Ajworcs[/bold] wrote: How are you going to manage the traffic flow of 2 sports centres, perdiswell park a swimming pool tip and this?! The whole project including pool, sports centre and football club should go to nunnery way with a new park and ride site. Nice idea in theory but there is simply not enough space.[/p][/quote]2 sports centres? There will only be one sports centre, like there is at the moment, there will be a swimming pool attached to the sports centre, which might get the traffic flow close to where it was before Perdiswell sports centre fell out of favour. There are already football pitches being used over the weekend, so that traffic will be the same, and the main football traffic will only increase this on matchdays. but with park and ride already there, and the ability to use the "park" bit of park and ride for parking on matchdays, this will not add greatly to the traffic flow, if at all. This scheme is well passed theory stage, with both the ST plans and the City Council swimming pool plans. In terms of space, Perdiswell covers more acreage than the whole of the Nunnery Way site, and 75% of Nunnery Way is going to be a retail park! Hillbilly1

3:29pm Sat 26 Jan 13

dulon says...

Hillbilly I agree with you The nunnery development will be another nail in the city centre coffin . All of these developers seem to think that it is more profitable to go to a green field site and swallow up the surrounding areas with yet more yet more profitable developments . The needs of the existing population and the existing businesses must be taken into consideration when the planners are confronted by the proposals . Perdiswell is perfect imho and the Worcester hockey club could do with a clubhouse and home astropitch to match their ambitions . The club loses developing players because of the lack of facilities and little to look forward to , I would imagine that WCFC suffers the same given the current situation .
Hillbilly I agree with you The nunnery development will be another nail in the city centre coffin . All of these developers seem to think that it is more profitable to go to a green field site and swallow up the surrounding areas with yet more yet more profitable developments . The needs of the existing population and the existing businesses must be taken into consideration when the planners are confronted by the proposals . Perdiswell is perfect imho and the Worcester hockey club could do with a clubhouse and home astropitch to match their ambitions . The club loses developing players because of the lack of facilities and little to look forward to , I would imagine that WCFC suffers the same given the current situation . dulon

4:46pm Sat 26 Jan 13

Hillbilly1 says...

And thats the point of this development, Hockey can be incorporated into the design.
And thats the point of this development, Hockey can be incorporated into the design. Hillbilly1

7:32pm Sat 26 Jan 13

Green'un says...

AT LAST!!!
AT LAST!!! Green'un

9:55pm Sat 26 Jan 13

wuster says...

The Report states that the Trust could have to fund up to £1 million for the stadium with the other £1 million coming from various grants. Has the Trust got their half of the cash to pay for a stadium due to be completed in 2015 or are they hoping that the people of Worcester will buy £1 million worth of shares for Worcester City football club in the next two years ?
The Report states that the Trust could have to fund up to £1 million for the stadium with the other £1 million coming from various grants. Has the Trust got their half of the cash to pay for a stadium due to be completed in 2015 or are they hoping that the people of Worcester will buy £1 million worth of shares for Worcester City football club in the next two years ? wuster

11:02pm Sat 26 Jan 13

CityBlueBoy says...

Taken from above article:


They want to launch a community shares scheme, similar to that run by FC United of Manchester, to allow people to invest in the project.
Taken from above article: They want to launch a community shares scheme, similar to that run by FC United of Manchester, to allow people to invest in the project. CityBlueBoy

11:53pm Sat 26 Jan 13

Lew Smoralz says...

If I buy shares will it be in WCFC or just the ground?

I am enthusiastic, but not yet fully committed.
If I buy shares will it be in WCFC or just the ground? I am enthusiastic, but not yet fully committed. Lew Smoralz

12:14am Sun 27 Jan 13

Ajworcs says...

Ok good arguments, just wish the news could have come out during consultation for the new pool which was a joke anyway! I agree nunnery way is pie in the sky and would never work. The other sports centre I refer to is Nuffield which when busy with bowl extreme and the young people's club can get busy. I'm not a golfer but there needs to be sensitivity there and also for dog walkers and others who use perdiswell as open space. It is green belt but I could see a proper plan regenerating both the club and north of the city. As for the tip, let's just move it; nunnery way perhaps?! None of the residents like it and on a big match day, when pool is full and park and ride stretched due to rugby, the tip could play havoc. Things need ironing out, all I'd say is involve the community in ideas as they could make or break it. Well done on coming up with some thought out sensible ideas - good luck!
Ok good arguments, just wish the news could have come out during consultation for the new pool which was a joke anyway! I agree nunnery way is pie in the sky and would never work. The other sports centre I refer to is Nuffield which when busy with bowl extreme and the young people's club can get busy. I'm not a golfer but there needs to be sensitivity there and also for dog walkers and others who use perdiswell as open space. It is green belt but I could see a proper plan regenerating both the club and north of the city. As for the tip, let's just move it; nunnery way perhaps?! None of the residents like it and on a big match day, when pool is full and park and ride stretched due to rugby, the tip could play havoc. Things need ironing out, all I'd say is involve the community in ideas as they could make or break it. Well done on coming up with some thought out sensible ideas - good luck! Ajworcs

3:18am Sun 27 Jan 13

CityBlueBoy says...

Lew Smoralz wrote:
If I buy shares will it be in WCFC or just the ground?

I am enthusiastic, but not yet fully committed.
This is a trust proposal and is NOT a club proposal.

More information on Community Shares can be found here: http://www.fc-utd.co
.uk/communityshares

Clicking the logo / document in the left hand side will open the full document in PDF.
[quote][p][bold]Lew Smoralz[/bold] wrote: If I buy shares will it be in WCFC or just the ground? I am enthusiastic, but not yet fully committed.[/p][/quote]This is a trust proposal and is NOT a club proposal. More information on Community Shares can be found here: http://www.fc-utd.co .uk/communityshares Clicking the logo / document in the left hand side will open the full document in PDF. CityBlueBoy

11:43am Sun 27 Jan 13

wuster says...

CityBlueBoy wrote:
Taken from above article: They want to launch a community shares scheme, similar to that run by FC United of Manchester, to allow people to invest in the project.
I understand how the community shares scheme works.
I don't understand who the Trust expects to buy £1 million worth of shares before the work begins in 2015.

50,000 residents (community shares) in Worcester paying £20 each in shares would hit the target, however 50,000 residents no longer really care what happens at St Georges Lane, they don't watch the team and I don't believe in the current economic climate they would be prepared to buy shares. It's the same problem that Nunnery Way has, the figures don't add up. Does the Trust have a
"Plan B" ?
[quote][p][bold]CityBlueBoy[/bold] wrote: Taken from above article: They want to launch a community shares scheme, similar to that run by FC United of Manchester, to allow people to invest in the project.[/p][/quote]I understand how the community shares scheme works. I don't understand who the Trust expects to buy £1 million worth of shares before the work begins in 2015. 50,000 residents (community shares) in Worcester paying £20 each in shares would hit the target, however 50,000 residents no longer really care what happens at St Georges Lane, they don't watch the team and I don't believe in the current economic climate they would be prepared to buy shares. It's the same problem that Nunnery Way has, the figures don't add up. Does the Trust have a "Plan B" ? wuster

12:13pm Sun 27 Jan 13

ThreePears says...

I'm fully behind this and would encourage all the local community to support it.
Has the football club come out and supported this idea as this seems to of come from the trust?
I'm fully behind this and would encourage all the local community to support it. Has the football club come out and supported this idea as this seems to of come from the trust? ThreePears

12:32pm Sun 27 Jan 13

wuster says...

the football club cannot support the scheme. It is rumoured that the football club is in a contract with St Modwens to build a "Landmark Stadium" at Nunnery Way by 2017.
If the football club support the Trust's proposal for the Perdiswell option the football club may be in breach of their contract with St Modwens.
the football club cannot support the scheme. It is rumoured that the football club is in a contract with St Modwens to build a "Landmark Stadium" at Nunnery Way by 2017. If the football club support the Trust's proposal for the Perdiswell option the football club may be in breach of their contract with St Modwens. wuster

1:57pm Sun 27 Jan 13

Hillbilly1 says...

This scheme is not a scheme put forward by WCFC Ltd. As you say, WCFC Ltd. are contracted to promote and fund a development at Nunnery Way with SMD. Contractually the football club cannot actively promote any other scheme whilst contracted to SMD, that was part of the highly restrictive contracts that SMD were able to tie WCFC Ltd. into through very niaive negotiation by the former board of directors! There are no rumours around these contracts, they are facts.
This scheme is not a scheme put forward by WCFC Ltd. As you say, WCFC Ltd. are contracted to promote and fund a development at Nunnery Way with SMD. Contractually the football club cannot actively promote any other scheme whilst contracted to SMD, that was part of the highly restrictive contracts that SMD were able to tie WCFC Ltd. into through very niaive negotiation by the former board of directors! There are no rumours around these contracts, they are facts. Hillbilly1

2:05pm Sun 27 Jan 13

Hillbilly1 says...

wuster wrote:
CityBlueBoy wrote:
Taken from above article: They want to launch a community shares scheme, similar to that run by FC United of Manchester, to allow people to invest in the project.
I understand how the community shares scheme works.
I don't understand who the Trust expects to buy £1 million worth of shares before the work begins in 2015.

50,000 residents (community shares) in Worcester paying £20 each in shares would hit the target, however 50,000 residents no longer really care what happens at St Georges Lane, they don't watch the team and I don't believe in the current economic climate they would be prepared to buy shares. It's the same problem that Nunnery Way has, the figures don't add up. Does the Trust have a
"Plan B" ?
Community Shares arent just for individuals, they are also for companies who might wish to make a safe investment in community projects. There may be businesses in Worcester that would like to invest £10k or more in a local sporting project. Maybe company directors with kids, who are at local football clubs who have lost their facilities, or young hockey players with no pitches, or other sports that have little funding. The figures do add up, and here is the difference. If WCFC Ltd. want to build a stadium at Nunnery Way, they will need to find £2 million without any access to grants, as Nunnery Way give no community value. The Perdiswell scheme needs £2 million but with access to maybe half or that, maybe more, via community funding grants.
Is there a Plan B? no, there's only a Plan A , there's no time or money available mow to even consider a plan B, this is it, and if it doesnt get support or funding, then its all over. But at least the Supporters Trust can be proud of the fact that they've tried.
[quote][p][bold]wuster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CityBlueBoy[/bold] wrote: Taken from above article: They want to launch a community shares scheme, similar to that run by FC United of Manchester, to allow people to invest in the project.[/p][/quote]I understand how the community shares scheme works. I don't understand who the Trust expects to buy £1 million worth of shares before the work begins in 2015. 50,000 residents (community shares) in Worcester paying £20 each in shares would hit the target, however 50,000 residents no longer really care what happens at St Georges Lane, they don't watch the team and I don't believe in the current economic climate they would be prepared to buy shares. It's the same problem that Nunnery Way has, the figures don't add up. Does the Trust have a "Plan B" ?[/p][/quote]Community Shares arent just for individuals, they are also for companies who might wish to make a safe investment in community projects. There may be businesses in Worcester that would like to invest £10k or more in a local sporting project. Maybe company directors with kids, who are at local football clubs who have lost their facilities, or young hockey players with no pitches, or other sports that have little funding. The figures do add up, and here is the difference. If WCFC Ltd. want to build a stadium at Nunnery Way, they will need to find £2 million without any access to grants, as Nunnery Way give no community value. The Perdiswell scheme needs £2 million but with access to maybe half or that, maybe more, via community funding grants. Is there a Plan B? no, there's only a Plan A , there's no time or money available mow to even consider a plan B, this is it, and if it doesnt get support or funding, then its all over. But at least the Supporters Trust can be proud of the fact that they've tried. Hillbilly1

2:08pm Sun 27 Jan 13

Hillbilly1 says...

wuster wrote:
the football club cannot support the scheme. It is rumoured that the football club is in a contract with St Modwens to build a "Landmark Stadium" at Nunnery Way by 2017.
If the football club support the Trust's proposal for the Perdiswell option the football club may be in breach of their contract with St Modwens.
Actually , the "Landmark Stadium" has been very much misquoted. The only use of the word Landmark is in relation to the retail development being a landmark retail development.
However, if you look at the latest set of plans for Nunnery Way, the football stadium is a very modest affair, with development on only 2 sides, and even this is beyond the clubs funding.
more information will be released regarding NW in time, so people can take an informed view.
[quote][p][bold]wuster[/bold] wrote: the football club cannot support the scheme. It is rumoured that the football club is in a contract with St Modwens to build a "Landmark Stadium" at Nunnery Way by 2017. If the football club support the Trust's proposal for the Perdiswell option the football club may be in breach of their contract with St Modwens.[/p][/quote]Actually , the "Landmark Stadium" has been very much misquoted. The only use of the word Landmark is in relation to the retail development being a landmark retail development. However, if you look at the latest set of plans for Nunnery Way, the football stadium is a very modest affair, with development on only 2 sides, and even this is beyond the clubs funding. more information will be released regarding NW in time, so people can take an informed view. Hillbilly1

3:10pm Sun 27 Jan 13

charlie the cat says...

I'd like to commend the Trust for actually getting the the ball rolling with this project there were so many people against the Nunnery Way developement it would be great for all those objectors to back this scheme to prove that they were against the developement and not against the football club. If the public and businesses really want a football club in this great City of ours then i suggest we back what the Trust are doing whole heartedly. Fantastic idea hope all the Trusts hardwork pays off.
I'd like to commend the Trust for actually getting the the ball rolling with this project there were so many people against the Nunnery Way developement it would be great for all those objectors to back this scheme to prove that they were against the developement and not against the football club. If the public and businesses really want a football club in this great City of ours then i suggest we back what the Trust are doing whole heartedly. Fantastic idea hope all the Trusts hardwork pays off. charlie the cat

4:20pm Sun 27 Jan 13

BJK says...

A little bit of foresight at last, the football club, love it hate it or indifferent to it has been part of the fabric of the city for longer than any of the current residents have lived in it. Apologies if your 108 years old. It needs to be an integral part of the city for the next 100 years. I hope the supporters dig deep, the council dig a little deeper and a few businesses also give up a few quid.
A little bit of foresight at last, the football club, love it hate it or indifferent to it has been part of the fabric of the city for longer than any of the current residents have lived in it. Apologies if your 108 years old. It needs to be an integral part of the city for the next 100 years. I hope the supporters dig deep, the council dig a little deeper and a few businesses also give up a few quid. BJK

6:58pm Sun 27 Jan 13

wuster says...

Hillbilly1 wrote:
wuster wrote:
the football club cannot support the scheme. It is rumoured that the football club is in a contract with St Modwens to build a "Landmark Stadium" at Nunnery Way by 2017.
If the football club support the Trust's proposal for the Perdiswell option the football club may be in breach of their contract with St Modwens.
Actually , the "Landmark Stadium" has been very much misquoted. The only use of the word Landmark is in relation to the retail development being a landmark retail development.
However, if you look at the latest set of plans for Nunnery Way, the football stadium is a very modest affair, with development on only 2 sides, and even this is beyond the clubs funding.
more information will be released regarding NW in time, so people can take an informed view.
The current project for Nunnery Way is "a very modest affair, with development on only 2 sides".

Will the Trust's proposed stadium be a "proper stadium" with development on all four sides for the same approximate £2 million budget?
[quote][p][bold]Hillbilly1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wuster[/bold] wrote: the football club cannot support the scheme. It is rumoured that the football club is in a contract with St Modwens to build a "Landmark Stadium" at Nunnery Way by 2017. If the football club support the Trust's proposal for the Perdiswell option the football club may be in breach of their contract with St Modwens.[/p][/quote]Actually , the "Landmark Stadium" has been very much misquoted. The only use of the word Landmark is in relation to the retail development being a landmark retail development. However, if you look at the latest set of plans for Nunnery Way, the football stadium is a very modest affair, with development on only 2 sides, and even this is beyond the clubs funding. more information will be released regarding NW in time, so people can take an informed view.[/p][/quote]The current project for Nunnery Way is "a very modest affair, with development on only 2 sides". Will the Trust's proposed stadium be a "proper stadium" with development on all four sides for the same approximate £2 million budget? wuster

7:04pm Sun 27 Jan 13

Lew Smoralz says...

And what happens in the event of St Modwen Properties PLC (excuse me while I wash my mouth out) building a football ground for the club, which the club can't afford to pay for, so they would be technically bankrupt? Please correct me if I have that wrong.

In which ground will the club play, or will they rotate between grounds?

Why do I always feel as though Lewis Carroll is writing the script when it comes to WCFC?

Is there something happening here that only the insiders know about?

Until the legal side is explained in full, only a misguided fool would part with any money.
And what happens in the event of St Modwen Properties PLC (excuse me while I wash my mouth out) building a football ground for the club, which the club can't afford to pay for, so they would be technically bankrupt? Please correct me if I have that wrong. In which ground will the club play, or will they rotate between grounds? Why do I always feel as though Lewis Carroll is writing the script when it comes to WCFC? Is there something happening here that only the insiders know about? Until the legal side is explained in full, only a misguided fool would part with any money. Lew Smoralz

7:04pm Sun 27 Jan 13

wuster says...

Hillbilly1 wrote:
This scheme is not a scheme put forward by WCFC Ltd. As you say, WCFC Ltd. are contracted to promote and fund a development at Nunnery Way with SMD. Contractually the football club cannot actively promote any other scheme whilst contracted to SMD, that was part of the highly restrictive contracts that SMD were able to tie WCFC Ltd. into through very niaive negotiation by the former board of directors! There are no rumours around these contracts, they are facts.
Sorry, a misunderstanding, I'm aware of the contracts signed by Boddy & Co. The rumour I was referring too was
"A landmark stadium by 2017" !!!!
[quote][p][bold]Hillbilly1[/bold] wrote: This scheme is not a scheme put forward by WCFC Ltd. As you say, WCFC Ltd. are contracted to promote and fund a development at Nunnery Way with SMD. Contractually the football club cannot actively promote any other scheme whilst contracted to SMD, that was part of the highly restrictive contracts that SMD were able to tie WCFC Ltd. into through very niaive negotiation by the former board of directors! There are no rumours around these contracts, they are facts.[/p][/quote]Sorry, a misunderstanding, I'm aware of the contracts signed by Boddy & Co. The rumour I was referring too was "A landmark stadium by 2017" !!!! wuster

7:23pm Sun 27 Jan 13

Andy (Ledbury) says...

wuster wrote:
Hillbilly1 wrote:
wuster wrote:
the football club cannot support the scheme. It is rumoured that the football club is in a contract with St Modwens to build a "Landmark Stadium" at Nunnery Way by 2017.
If the football club support the Trust's proposal for the Perdiswell option the football club may be in breach of their contract with St Modwens.
Actually , the "Landmark Stadium" has been very much misquoted. The only use of the word Landmark is in relation to the retail development being a landmark retail development.
However, if you look at the latest set of plans for Nunnery Way, the football stadium is a very modest affair, with development on only 2 sides, and even this is beyond the clubs funding.
more information will be released regarding NW in time, so people can take an informed view.
The current project for Nunnery Way is "a very modest affair, with development on only 2 sides".

Will the Trust's proposed stadium be a "proper stadium" with development on all four sides for the same approximate £2 million budget?
Even if it is the same or different at 2m, Wuster, there are fundamental differences in the financing model.

There is no evidence of NW being built, or intending to be built. Therefore, large part of revenue from SGL sale will go to CGT.

The ST scheme can be part funded by grants (which NW is not eligible for, given the way it was progressed with no community element) and partly by raised funds, which because they are community grants are tax efficient (which needed donations into NW would not be).

If (though it is probably not likely, and is dependent on SMD), and its a very big IF, SMD were to release WCFC funds into the scheme (SMD investing gain from gain in a tax efficient manner into ST scheme) during 2015, then WCFC may not be liable to CGT. It does not seem to be WCFC's fault that gains from SGL sale will not have been invested into capital by 2015, and will thus be CGT liable.
[quote][p][bold]wuster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hillbilly1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wuster[/bold] wrote: the football club cannot support the scheme. It is rumoured that the football club is in a contract with St Modwens to build a "Landmark Stadium" at Nunnery Way by 2017. If the football club support the Trust's proposal for the Perdiswell option the football club may be in breach of their contract with St Modwens.[/p][/quote]Actually , the "Landmark Stadium" has been very much misquoted. The only use of the word Landmark is in relation to the retail development being a landmark retail development. However, if you look at the latest set of plans for Nunnery Way, the football stadium is a very modest affair, with development on only 2 sides, and even this is beyond the clubs funding. more information will be released regarding NW in time, so people can take an informed view.[/p][/quote]The current project for Nunnery Way is "a very modest affair, with development on only 2 sides". Will the Trust's proposed stadium be a "proper stadium" with development on all four sides for the same approximate £2 million budget?[/p][/quote]Even if it is the same or different at 2m, Wuster, there are fundamental differences in the financing model. There is no evidence of NW being built, or intending to be built. Therefore, large part of revenue from SGL sale will go to CGT. The ST scheme can be part funded by grants (which NW is not eligible for, given the way it was progressed with no community element) and partly by raised funds, which because they are community grants are tax efficient (which needed donations into NW would not be). If (though it is probably not likely, and is dependent on SMD), and its a very big IF, SMD were to release WCFC funds into the scheme (SMD investing gain from gain in a tax efficient manner into ST scheme) during 2015, then WCFC may not be liable to CGT. It does not seem to be WCFC's fault that gains from SGL sale will not have been invested into capital by 2015, and will thus be CGT liable. Andy (Ledbury)

7:55pm Sun 27 Jan 13

wuster says...

Andy (Ledbury) wrote:
wuster wrote:
Hillbilly1 wrote:
wuster wrote:
the football club cannot support the scheme. It is rumoured that the football club is in a contract with St Modwens to build a "Landmark Stadium" at Nunnery Way by 2017.
If the football club support the Trust's proposal for the Perdiswell option the football club may be in breach of their contract with St Modwens.
Actually , the "Landmark Stadium" has been very much misquoted. The only use of the word Landmark is in relation to the retail development being a landmark retail development.
However, if you look at the latest set of plans for Nunnery Way, the football stadium is a very modest affair, with development on only 2 sides, and even this is beyond the clubs funding.
more information will be released regarding NW in time, so people can take an informed view.
The current project for Nunnery Way is "a very modest affair, with development on only 2 sides".

Will the Trust's proposed stadium be a "proper stadium" with development on all four sides for the same approximate £2 million budget?
Even if it is the same or different at 2m, Wuster, there are fundamental differences in the financing model.

There is no evidence of NW being built, or intending to be built. Therefore, large part of revenue from SGL sale will go to CGT.

The ST scheme can be part funded by grants (which NW is not eligible for, given the way it was progressed with no community element) and partly by raised funds, which because they are community grants are tax efficient (which needed donations into NW would not be).

If (though it is probably not likely, and is dependent on SMD), and its a very big IF, SMD were to release WCFC funds into the scheme (SMD investing gain from gain in a tax efficient manner into ST scheme) during 2015, then WCFC may not be liable to CGT. It does not seem to be WCFC's fault that gains from SGL sale will not have been invested into capital by 2015, and will thus be CGT liable.
So is it a modest two sided stadium or a larger four sided stadium being proposed by the Trust ?
[quote][p][bold]Andy (Ledbury)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wuster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hillbilly1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wuster[/bold] wrote: the football club cannot support the scheme. It is rumoured that the football club is in a contract with St Modwens to build a "Landmark Stadium" at Nunnery Way by 2017. If the football club support the Trust's proposal for the Perdiswell option the football club may be in breach of their contract with St Modwens.[/p][/quote]Actually , the "Landmark Stadium" has been very much misquoted. The only use of the word Landmark is in relation to the retail development being a landmark retail development. However, if you look at the latest set of plans for Nunnery Way, the football stadium is a very modest affair, with development on only 2 sides, and even this is beyond the clubs funding. more information will be released regarding NW in time, so people can take an informed view.[/p][/quote]The current project for Nunnery Way is "a very modest affair, with development on only 2 sides". Will the Trust's proposed stadium be a "proper stadium" with development on all four sides for the same approximate £2 million budget?[/p][/quote]Even if it is the same or different at 2m, Wuster, there are fundamental differences in the financing model. There is no evidence of NW being built, or intending to be built. Therefore, large part of revenue from SGL sale will go to CGT. The ST scheme can be part funded by grants (which NW is not eligible for, given the way it was progressed with no community element) and partly by raised funds, which because they are community grants are tax efficient (which needed donations into NW would not be). If (though it is probably not likely, and is dependent on SMD), and its a very big IF, SMD were to release WCFC funds into the scheme (SMD investing gain from gain in a tax efficient manner into ST scheme) during 2015, then WCFC may not be liable to CGT. It does not seem to be WCFC's fault that gains from SGL sale will not have been invested into capital by 2015, and will thus be CGT liable.[/p][/quote]So is it a modest two sided stadium or a larger four sided stadium being proposed by the Trust ? wuster

7:58pm Sun 27 Jan 13

Doogie 46 says...

I must confess I seem to remember reading that a "landmark" stadium which would have various amenities to generate income over and above match day gate money was the deal breaker in getting the plans off the ground for the retail/business park.
The object being to try and secure the long term future of the club, although this was in the early days of the project (about 15 years ago) and current plans under discussion seem to be a world away from that level.
The Supporters Trust plans are a welcme bolt from the blue and if they comes to fruition I would most certainly participate in a community share scheme.
Quite frankly, I don`t know why Perdiswell wasn`t the first objective - I guess we`ll never know why the old regime got the club into the stranglehold of St Modwen - was it crass incompetence or something else?
I suspect the current board are right behind the Supporters Trust but of course contractually they couldn`t possibly say so!!!
I must confess I seem to remember reading that a "landmark" stadium which would have various amenities to generate income over and above match day gate money was the deal breaker in getting the plans off the ground for the retail/business park. The object being to try and secure the long term future of the club, although this was in the early days of the project (about 15 years ago) and current plans under discussion seem to be a world away from that level. The Supporters Trust plans are a welcme bolt from the blue and if they comes to fruition I would most certainly participate in a community share scheme. Quite frankly, I don`t know why Perdiswell wasn`t the first objective - I guess we`ll never know why the old regime got the club into the stranglehold of St Modwen - was it crass incompetence or something else? I suspect the current board are right behind the Supporters Trust but of course contractually they couldn`t possibly say so!!! Doogie 46

8:17pm Sun 27 Jan 13

Andy (Ledbury) says...

Wuster, you ask whether it is a modest two sided stadium or a larger four sided stadium being proposed by the Trust ?

I believe both stadia will have four sides. ;-)

The question is what you do with them. The basic model at NW was for a stand and one end of covered terrace in the first instance (if I recall the last planning application correctly).

I understand the ST scheme is for a 500 seater stand, with one other side (or end) covered. Pretty much as per the NW planning application, though not all details have been finalised, and I am relying on terrace talk. The proposed scheme is Conference standard, not League standard. However, I believe the proposal builds in scope for expansion (eg if the football club were to become interested in playing there, and could invest say a 1.3m return from SGL, if circumstances ever permitted, and if that 1.3m werent ever to be subject to CGT). That scenario might allow for more than two sides to be covered.
Wuster, you ask whether it is a modest two sided stadium or a larger four sided stadium being proposed by the Trust ? I believe both stadia will have four sides. ;-) The question is what you do with them. The basic model at NW was for a stand and one end of covered terrace in the first instance (if I recall the last planning application correctly). I understand the ST scheme is for a 500 seater stand, with one other side (or end) covered. Pretty much as per the NW planning application, though not all details have been finalised, and I am relying on terrace talk. The proposed scheme is Conference standard, not League standard. However, I believe the proposal builds in scope for expansion (eg if the football club were to become interested in playing there, and could invest say a 1.3m return from SGL, if circumstances ever permitted, and if that 1.3m werent ever to be subject to CGT). That scenario might allow for more than two sides to be covered. Andy (Ledbury)

8:20pm Sun 27 Jan 13

Andy (Ledbury) says...

But, looking beyond two sides is certainly fanciful and unnecessary at this stage. The focus in on a community sports facility with community and grant financing. If I'm wrong, others involved with ST will no doubt make the appropriate corrections.
But, looking beyond two sides is certainly fanciful and unnecessary at this stage. The focus in on a community sports facility with community and grant financing. If I'm wrong, others involved with ST will no doubt make the appropriate corrections. Andy (Ledbury)

9:49pm Sun 27 Jan 13

Hillbilly1 says...

The ST plans is developed on two sides and has been costed out, and a plan to find the funding has been explained, with the ST looking first for applicable community grants, and funding the shortfall via community shares. the NW plan is developed on two sides, no-one is aware of the costing as no financial plans were revised for the planning application, with the football club needing to fund 100% of the stadium development without any capital available, so will need to go to commercial lenders i.e. loans / debt!
The development of both designs is probably similar to Evesham United and Salisbury City, both two sided with room for expansion.
The ST plans is developed on two sides and has been costed out, and a plan to find the funding has been explained, with the ST looking first for applicable community grants, and funding the shortfall via community shares. the NW plan is developed on two sides, no-one is aware of the costing as no financial plans were revised for the planning application, with the football club needing to fund 100% of the stadium development without any capital available, so will need to go to commercial lenders i.e. loans / debt! The development of both designs is probably similar to Evesham United and Salisbury City, both two sided with room for expansion. Hillbilly1

10:25pm Sun 27 Jan 13

Hillbilly1 says...

any comments from the football club? or St Modwens?
any comments from the football club? or St Modwens? Hillbilly1

12:45pm Mon 28 Jan 13

mayall8808 says...

I do remember years ago maybe in the 70s there was a suggestion that the football club be placed at Perdiswell as it made sense for access as ST Georges Lane was no longer good enough access, so although the way forward now is new i do think i is an old but good idea as the main roads are in place, park and ride etc so makes sense.
I do remember years ago maybe in the 70s there was a suggestion that the football club be placed at Perdiswell as it made sense for access as ST Georges Lane was no longer good enough access, so although the way forward now is new i do think i is an old but good idea as the main roads are in place, park and ride etc so makes sense. mayall8808

5:46pm Mon 28 Jan 13

More Tea Vicar says...

charlie the cat wrote:
I'd like to commend the Trust for actually getting the the ball rolling with this project there were so many people against the Nunnery Way developement it would be great for all those objectors to back this scheme to prove that they were against the developement and not against the football club. If the public and businesses really want a football club in this great City of ours then i suggest we back what the Trust are doing whole heartedly. Fantastic idea hope all the Trusts hardwork pays off.
Good luck to them, but maybe the big question is precisely that - does the public really WANT a football club?

I can imagine the people commenting most have a great interest and knowledge of this plan, which is great.

I'd just be concerned that the plans might be based on an over-optimistic view of public support, with the Trust not able to muster the funds it hopes for. And in these straitened times, I can imagine the other funding bodies mentioned perhaps not being able to live up to their side of the deal.

And maybe the whole thing will run out of steam, and the taxpayer end up footing the bill.
[quote][p][bold]charlie the cat[/bold] wrote: I'd like to commend the Trust for actually getting the the ball rolling with this project there were so many people against the Nunnery Way developement it would be great for all those objectors to back this scheme to prove that they were against the developement and not against the football club. If the public and businesses really want a football club in this great City of ours then i suggest we back what the Trust are doing whole heartedly. Fantastic idea hope all the Trusts hardwork pays off.[/p][/quote]Good luck to them, but maybe the big question is precisely that - does the public really WANT a football club? I can imagine the people commenting most have a great interest and knowledge of this plan, which is great. I'd just be concerned that the plans might be based on an over-optimistic view of public support, with the Trust not able to muster the funds it hopes for. And in these straitened times, I can imagine the other funding bodies mentioned perhaps not being able to live up to their side of the deal. And maybe the whole thing will run out of steam, and the taxpayer end up footing the bill. More Tea Vicar

5:54pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Andy (Ledbury) says...

The only relationship with the taxpayer that I can currently see is that the Government (ergo the taxpayer) will benefit from approx 500K of CGT from WCFC, as the Club has been unable to reinvest its SGL sales earnings on a timescale that might have otherwise legally reduced that liability. So, taxpayers might benefit from the Football Club going bust. Perverse, but highly possible. Especially perverse given the number of football clubs/commercial businesses that have gone into administration specifically in order to avoid paying outstanding HMRC bills.
The only relationship with the taxpayer that I can currently see is that the Government (ergo the taxpayer) will benefit from approx 500K of CGT from WCFC, as the Club has been unable to reinvest its SGL sales earnings on a timescale that might have otherwise legally reduced that liability. So, taxpayers might benefit from the Football Club going bust. Perverse, but highly possible. Especially perverse given the number of football clubs/commercial businesses that have gone into administration specifically in order to avoid paying outstanding HMRC bills. Andy (Ledbury)

8:14pm Mon 28 Jan 13

toofaraway says...

I think a number of posters have missed the point.
This is a community stadium which is to be used by the community in addition to new3G artificial pitches...also for community use.
Yes it makes sense For WCFC to host their home games there but as I understand it this is not being built For WCFC. This is an initiative by their supporters' trust and would be run and managed by The Trust with no cost to the council and out of the hands Of WCFC.
Also any private funds made through a share scheme would give massive tax benefits to the investor and their money is safe and will be returned should the stadium not be built or run into financial problems.
I think a number of posters have missed the point. This is a community stadium which is to be used by the community in addition to new3G artificial pitches...also for community use. Yes it makes sense For WCFC to host their home games there but as I understand it this is not being built For WCFC. This is an initiative by their supporters' trust and would be run and managed by The Trust with no cost to the council and out of the hands Of WCFC. Also any private funds made through a share scheme would give massive tax benefits to the investor and their money is safe and will be returned should the stadium not be built or run into financial problems. toofaraway

11:25pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Archie Claines says...

People need to remember that this has always been about a land deal at Nunnery Way, and the Football Club was merely the key which unlocked development of greenfield land between Junction 6 and Junction 7 of the M5. (See Andrew Guy’s post).

Since the late 90’s to 2009 David Hallmark was the self-styled leader of this “project”. He took charge of the deals until the signing of the contract with St Modwen.

The whole ground move should have been a simple act. To sell St George’s Lane, find land elsewhere, and build a new sustainable ground. However the whole affair became unnecessarily complex as the club waited for planning permission to be granted for enabling development they didn’t actually need on land they could have bought several times over without t. It would appear that it was the cost of the enabling development that forced the price of land up at NW to make it unaffordable to WCFC.

So why wasn’t land just purchased and the stadium built without an enabling development? Could this be because if there had been no enabling development on NW there would be no further development along the J6-J7 corridor – and therefore no subsequent hike in the value of the land as its categorization changed from greenfield to developable?

Was the NW site chosen because of its suitability as a football stadium? Clearly not as it is straddled by a busy dual carriageway that will need a footbridge costing around £500,000 to be built; has unsuitable soil; and an ancient bridleway running through the middle of the pitch.

Isn’t it strange that the “project leader” could find no other suitable location for the stadium during a period of nearly twenty years, but since he has ceased to be involved at least two other possibilities have now been put forward?

As for the present club board backing Nunnery Way, that’s an idea that should be dismissed. They are bound by a contract signed by people who quickly cleared off when the deal to commit WCFC to Nunnery Way had been done, and I understand that they have been told in no uncertain terms that if they do anything to oppose NW they will have to “face the consequences”.

This is a shame as several members of the current board fought tool and nail to stop the NW project before they became directors.

The club currently can’t do anything, the supporters can. And this proposal for the stadium at Perdiswell is their response.

The Worcester News needs to be asking the former “project leader” a few questions as to the handling of this whole affair.
People need to remember that this has always been about a land deal at Nunnery Way, and the Football Club was merely the key which unlocked development of greenfield land between Junction 6 and Junction 7 of the M5. (See Andrew Guy’s post). Since the late 90’s to 2009 David Hallmark was the self-styled leader of this “project”. He took charge of the deals until the signing of the contract with St Modwen. The whole ground move should have been a simple act. To sell St George’s Lane, find land elsewhere, and build a new sustainable ground. However the whole affair became unnecessarily complex as the club waited for planning permission to be granted for enabling development they didn’t actually need on land they could have bought several times over without t. It would appear that it was the cost of the enabling development that forced the price of land up at NW to make it unaffordable to WCFC. So why wasn’t land just purchased and the stadium built without an enabling development? Could this be because if there had been no enabling development on NW there would be no further development along the J6-J7 corridor – and therefore no subsequent hike in the value of the land as its categorization changed from greenfield to developable? Was the NW site chosen because of its suitability as a football stadium? Clearly not as it is straddled by a busy dual carriageway that will need a footbridge costing around £500,000 to be built; has unsuitable soil; and an ancient bridleway running through the middle of the pitch. Isn’t it strange that the “project leader” could find no other suitable location for the stadium during a period of nearly twenty years, but since he has ceased to be involved at least two other possibilities have now been put forward? As for the present club board backing Nunnery Way, that’s an idea that should be dismissed. They are bound by a contract signed by people who quickly cleared off when the deal to commit WCFC to Nunnery Way had been done, and I understand that they have been told in no uncertain terms that if they do anything to oppose NW they will have to “face the consequences”. This is a shame as several members of the current board fought tool and nail to stop the NW project before they became directors. The club currently can’t do anything, the supporters can. And this proposal for the stadium at Perdiswell is their response. The Worcester News needs to be asking the former “project leader” a few questions as to the handling of this whole affair. Archie Claines

11:13am Wed 30 Jan 13

Lew Smoralz says...

Thanks Archie Claines,

What is the best scenario that WCFC supporters can hope for? How long will the NW "project" hang over the club, restricting its ability to spend its money where it wants, i.e. when can the directors participate in a new way forward?

Will there be any money when HMRC have finished?

Those of us who want emotionally to assist are still worried by the unclear legal situation, and I certainly will not spend any money until I know what is happening. I don't do blind trust any more!
Thanks Archie Claines, What is the best scenario that WCFC supporters can hope for? How long will the NW "project" hang over the club, restricting its ability to spend its money where it wants, i.e. when can the directors participate in a new way forward? Will there be any money when HMRC have finished? Those of us who want emotionally to assist are still worried by the unclear legal situation, and I certainly will not spend any money until I know what is happening. I don't do blind trust any more! Lew Smoralz

9:57pm Wed 30 Jan 13

Hillbilly1 says...

Lew Smoralz - WCFC Ltd. are contracted to NW until 2017. All monies left over after debts are paid, i.e £1.3 million will be used to pay for 5.5 acres of land, and the site infrastructure, and thats all. No money will be available to build a stadium on the land.
No one is sure about the HMRC CGT situation. The club would be exempt from CGT if they can prove that the profit from the sale of SGL will be rolled over into a new asset (NW). However, approx £1.4 million has already been used to pay debts, and not rolled over into a new ground. It is possible that the club will have a CGT liabilty of around £500,000. This would mean the club would not have enough money to honour the agreements with SMD!
What is the best scenario a WCFC supporter can hope for? Firstly that the club can survive two years of ground sharing at Aggborough, with limited income, and little hope of raising revenue other than gate money. Then hopefully there will be a ground available to them in 2015/16 - and to be fair, it doesnt look like that ground will be at NW! The club could agree a short term rental agreement at Perdiswell for 2015/16 and 2016/17, with a view to extending this should NW not be ready to play at come 2017/18. WCFC Ltd. could be in a position where they own a plot of land at NW (which could be sold for development?) and play at a rented ground at Perdiswell!
Lew Smoralz - WCFC Ltd. are contracted to NW until 2017. All monies left over after debts are paid, i.e £1.3 million will be used to pay for 5.5 acres of land, and the site infrastructure, and thats all. No money will be available to build a stadium on the land. No one is sure about the HMRC CGT situation. The club would be exempt from CGT if they can prove that the profit from the sale of SGL will be rolled over into a new asset (NW). However, approx £1.4 million has already been used to pay debts, and not rolled over into a new ground. It is possible that the club will have a CGT liabilty of around £500,000. This would mean the club would not have enough money to honour the agreements with SMD! What is the best scenario a WCFC supporter can hope for? Firstly that the club can survive two years of ground sharing at Aggborough, with limited income, and little hope of raising revenue other than gate money. Then hopefully there will be a ground available to them in 2015/16 - and to be fair, it doesnt look like that ground will be at NW! The club could agree a short term rental agreement at Perdiswell for 2015/16 and 2016/17, with a view to extending this should NW not be ready to play at come 2017/18. WCFC Ltd. could be in a position where they own a plot of land at NW (which could be sold for development?) and play at a rented ground at Perdiswell! Hillbilly1

10:54pm Wed 30 Jan 13

Lew Smoralz says...

Hillbilly1 - thanks, that was a really informative post, and it all becomes a lot clearer. However, it does raise a further query which is relevant for anyone thinking about supporting this venture.

What is the legal status of the Supporters Trust? Once the main ground and surrounding grounds are built and start to generate revenue from rent, to whom will that income go and what will it be used for in the Trust constitution?

There are six pitches on the site at present, how many will be kept and maintained by the trust? I am thinking here of junior football and how this project might be more than just "saving the bacon" of WCFC, but also provide a football-centre for the whole city.

I am almost bought in, but sadly I am not one of the Dragons in the Den!
Hillbilly1 - thanks, that was a really informative post, and it all becomes a lot clearer. However, it does raise a further query which is relevant for anyone thinking about supporting this venture. What is the legal status of the Supporters Trust? Once the main ground and surrounding grounds are built and start to generate revenue from rent, to whom will that income go and what will it be used for in the Trust constitution? There are six pitches on the site at present, how many will be kept and maintained by the trust? I am thinking here of junior football and how this project might be more than just "saving the bacon" of WCFC, but also provide a football-centre for the whole city. I am almost bought in, but sadly I am not one of the Dragons in the Den! Lew Smoralz

9:22am Thu 31 Jan 13

Andrew Guy says...

The Local Plan allows for no more than "a single stadium building" (policy CLT32). Mixed use "Enabling development" on the rest of the 20 acre site, supposedly to fund the stadium build (ha ha), was always the real prize for St Modwen.
-
The demise of WCFC can be blamed on St Modwen for trying to use WCFC as the trojan horse that would get them onto those greenfields.
-
HM Planning Inspector Clive Richardson reported after the Public Inquiry of 2003-04:
-
"I consider that Worcester City Football Club's proposals for enabling development are unacceptable" (para 10.26.40)
-
So, WCFC would not be able to sell land on Nunnery Way for development!
The Local Plan allows for no more than "a single stadium building" (policy CLT32). Mixed use "Enabling development" on the rest of the 20 acre site, supposedly to fund the stadium build (ha ha), was always the real prize for St Modwen. - The demise of WCFC can be blamed on St Modwen for trying to use WCFC as the trojan horse that would get them onto those greenfields. - HM Planning Inspector Clive Richardson reported after the Public Inquiry of 2003-04: - "I consider that Worcester City Football Club's proposals for enabling development are unacceptable" (para 10.26.40) - So, WCFC would not be able to sell land on Nunnery Way for development! Andrew Guy

11:47am Thu 31 Jan 13

Hillbilly1 says...

Lew Smoralz wrote:
Hillbilly1 - thanks, that was a really informative post, and it all becomes a lot clearer. However, it does raise a further query which is relevant for anyone thinking about supporting this venture.

What is the legal status of the Supporters Trust? Once the main ground and surrounding grounds are built and start to generate revenue from rent, to whom will that income go and what will it be used for in the Trust constitution?

There are six pitches on the site at present, how many will be kept and maintained by the trust? I am thinking here of junior football and how this project might be more than just "saving the bacon" of WCFC, but also provide a football-centre for the whole city.

I am almost bought in, but sadly I am not one of the Dragons in the Den!
The Supporters Trust is a legal entity known as an IPS, an Industrial and Provident Society, which is the same as a building society. It is owned by its members, and is ran as a not-for-profit organisation - see here for more details http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Supporters_
trust
The WCFCST has, since it was set up, worked very closely with Supporters Direct, which provides governance, support, and advice for all the Supporters Trusts across the country in multiple sports. Supporters Trusts are fully independent of the club that its members support, and the club has no access to any of the finances of the Supporters Trust.
Income raised from the sports hub would go to th Supporters Trust, therefore to its members, and MAY be used to provide income for the football club. The plan is for the football club to utilise the facilities at the hub to generate its own revenue. The income that the ST raises is used as its members see fit.
You have touched on a very important element of this plan with the junior football. In order for community grants to be accessed, the scheme has to show community value. I do not know the full design details, however, the scheme will include at least one stadium, one 4G floodlit pitch and 3 other full size pitches, together with 9 a side pitches for juniors, of which there are very few at the moment! These pitches will not just be for football, the 4G pitch would be for use by other sports, and the other pitches could be used outside the football season for alternative sports - at the moment they lie idle for 3 or 4 months every year!
This scheme is not about saving WCFC's bacon, in fact, unless the fooball club are capable of running their business in a profitable and sensible manner, then they will notbe able to save their own bacon! Any involvement with WCFC will be on a proper commercial basis, obviously the Supporters Trust wants to provide support for the club, in order to have a club to support, but this is NOT a cash cow.
When the Supporters Trust was first set up, I know that the regime in charge at the time actually put an amount of 2,000 into the annual budgets as "donations" from the Supporters Trust, without even telling the Supporters Trust about this! These "donations" were never sanctioned by the ST, or recieved by the football club! A request for a donation towards kit was also declined, as this should have been allocated within a sensible budget already, and provided no benefit to supporters. The frost covers, which have already shown return on the investment, were funded by the ST, as this was a purchase which provided revenue to the club ( by avoiding postponement of games, which helps the cashflow) and also to supporters, by making sure games go ahead as scheduled!
The Supporters Trust are now working very closely with the new regime at the club, who are sensible, balanced, and driven by the desire to maintain a community no-league football club, and not by delusions of grandeur and talk of getting into the football league!!
[quote][p][bold]Lew Smoralz[/bold] wrote: Hillbilly1 - thanks, that was a really informative post, and it all becomes a lot clearer. However, it does raise a further query which is relevant for anyone thinking about supporting this venture. What is the legal status of the Supporters Trust? Once the main ground and surrounding grounds are built and start to generate revenue from rent, to whom will that income go and what will it be used for in the Trust constitution? There are six pitches on the site at present, how many will be kept and maintained by the trust? I am thinking here of junior football and how this project might be more than just "saving the bacon" of WCFC, but also provide a football-centre for the whole city. I am almost bought in, but sadly I am not one of the Dragons in the Den![/p][/quote]The Supporters Trust is a legal entity known as an IPS, an Industrial and Provident Society, which is the same as a building society. It is owned by its members, and is ran as a not-for-profit organisation - see here for more details http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Supporters_ trust The WCFCST has, since it was set up, worked very closely with Supporters Direct, which provides governance, support, and advice for all the Supporters Trusts across the country in multiple sports. Supporters Trusts are fully independent of the club that its members support, and the club has no access to any of the finances of the Supporters Trust. Income raised from the sports hub would go to th Supporters Trust, therefore to its members, and MAY be used to provide income for the football club. The plan is for the football club to utilise the facilities at the hub to generate its own revenue. The income that the ST raises is used as its members see fit. You have touched on a very important element of this plan with the junior football. In order for community grants to be accessed, the scheme has to show community value. I do not know the full design details, however, the scheme will include at least one stadium, one 4G floodlit pitch and 3 other full size pitches, together with 9 a side pitches for juniors, of which there are very few at the moment! These pitches will not just be for football, the 4G pitch would be for use by other sports, and the other pitches could be used outside the football season for alternative sports - at the moment they lie idle for 3 or 4 months every year! This scheme is not about saving WCFC's bacon, in fact, unless the fooball club are capable of running their business in a profitable and sensible manner, then they will notbe able to save their own bacon! Any involvement with WCFC will be on a proper commercial basis, obviously the Supporters Trust wants to provide support for the club, in order to have a club to support, but this is NOT a cash cow. When the Supporters Trust was first set up, I know that the regime in charge at the time actually put an amount of 2,000 into the annual budgets as "donations" from the Supporters Trust, without even telling the Supporters Trust about this! These "donations" were never sanctioned by the ST, or recieved by the football club! A request for a donation towards kit was also declined, as this should have been allocated within a sensible budget already, and provided no benefit to supporters. The frost covers, which have already shown return on the investment, were funded by the ST, as this was a purchase which provided revenue to the club ( by avoiding postponement of games, which helps the cashflow) and also to supporters, by making sure games go ahead as scheduled! The Supporters Trust are now working very closely with the new regime at the club, who are sensible, balanced, and driven by the desire to maintain a community no-league football club, and not by delusions of grandeur and talk of getting into the football league!! Hillbilly1

2:14pm Thu 31 Jan 13

Lew Smoralz says...

Thank you Hillbilly1, I am convinced and wish you and the trust the best of luck in getting the scheme through planning and into reality.

The scheme provides Worcester with a facility that has been sadly lacking, and will give our youngsters something that is lacking at present.
Thank you Hillbilly1, I am convinced and wish you and the trust the best of luck in getting the scheme through planning and into reality. The scheme provides Worcester with a facility that has been sadly lacking, and will give our youngsters something that is lacking at present. Lew Smoralz

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

Get Adobe Flash player
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