Sport RSS Feed


Win Worcester Warriors Aviva Premiership Match Tickets

City reveal new £1.26m ground costs


JUST 24 hours after unveiling revised plans, Worcester City have revealed they are at least £1.5 million short of building a new stadium at Nunnery Way.

City want to build a ground to Blue Square Bet North standard for £2m, which will feature a 556-seater main stand and a covered terrace.

However, the figures did not include land and infrastructure costs, which have been set by site owners St Modwen at £1.26m.

The developer wants £100,000 for each acre of the 5.75-acre site and another £660,000 to cover the infrastructure costs, which have to be paid on vacation of St George’s Lane in June 2013.

That takes the overall cost of the project to £3.266m — and City look set to have £1.75m at best once the Royal Bank of Scotland debt has been settled from the sale of the Lane.

It is an alarming funding gap and one which appears to leave the future of the scheme in jeopardy.

Club officials are working with St Modwen to address the shortfall — there is still hope of a profit-share from the enabling development — but admit it is tough.

Director Andrew Watson said: “There are three aspects to the project — the land, the infrastructure costs and the stadium itself.

“We are doing our very best to do it but we have got a stacked hand. It’s not easy and even with these figures we are not going to end up with very much. It won’t be special, it will be very basic.

“Clearly we understand that to get planning permission, the council are going to want to see how we are going to fund it and we are in detailed discussions with St Modwen.”

City are consulting a quantity surveyor to evaluate the drawings and costings which they hope could reduce the stadium cost by £500,000 but they still have to find the remaining money to build it.

There is also the issue of a pedestrian footbridge across the dual carrriageway, costing around £750,000 which remains a sticking point for both parties.

City are tied to a contract with St Modwen, allowing the Birmingham firm to keep their options open until 2017, which will only fail if there is no hope of planning permission being granted in that time.

Watson added: “The legal position is that it has to be financially sustainable.

“The business plan states that we need overage from St Modwen to fund the stadium costs.

“I don’t think the city council will give planning permission to a project that is not sustainable.”

• Get the latest City news and see how the league looks here.

Comments(9)

humbug66 says...
11:26am Tue 7 Sep 10

it does not matter to much what city g.et as a ground,the most important thing is to stay in the area not ground share.time to start singing from the same hyme books ,as for woodgreen drive its ther to be driven on not looked at by residents,my own road is used as a run from nunnerywood school and a six form its a road its ment to be used

Andrew Guy says...
3:37pm Tue 7 Sep 10

It's all so pitiful and predictable.
-
Despite the only limited grasp of numeracy required and the clarion voices of the sane and sober on all sides, WCFC has been suckered by carpetbaggers into an ill-advised (very ill-advised) and ill-fated adventure into property specultation.
-
What astonishes me most is that despite the clear wording of the Local Plan, the consistent position of the planners for over 15 years, the report of HM Planning Inspector at public inquiry and firm opposition from the club's longest and most loyal supporters, the current board still seem to think Nunnery Way just might happen...
-
However, "...it is not the purpose of the planning system to prop up an ailing business by freeing the Football Club from its accumulated debt and granting it a significant endowment in circumstances where, by definition, enabling development would be contrary to planning policy."
-
(HM Planning Inspector, Public Inquiry Report, 2004)

Avante says...
4:57pm Tue 7 Sep 10

Andrew, the present Board APPEAR to think its going to happen, but there again, because of the ineptitude of the previous Chairman in his negotiation of contracts, they HAVE to APPEAR to thinks its going to happen for fear of being in breach of contracts! They cannot come out and say they are not in agreement with their binding property partner, for fear of what action might be taken. SMD have made sure the Board are perfectly aware that they (SMD) have got until 2017 before the contract is considered frustrated! They (SMD) also know that the club cant afford to fight any actions!

Andrew Guy says...
6:54pm Tue 7 Sep 10

Jem, I just don't buy the idea that this is all a pretence to keep SMD sweet. Why bother? Really? Does the club need SMD or does SMD need the club? Wouldn't the club rather have SMD off their backs for good? No-one but SMD wants to go to Nunnery Way - this is no longer disputed. If the club frustrates any extant contract, then SMD could go legal... and WCFC could choose to spend every last penny of it's c.£1.75 on lawyers... or not ... either way WCFC goes bust if SMD gets tough. The whole rationale underlying this "project" is that SMD think they can use WCFC as a planning trojan horse to get onto the greenfields of the M5 Protection Corridor. Policy CLT32 would expire with WCFC (if/when it goes bust) and without CLT32 a bust club will no longer be of any use to SMD - the goose can be starved or blow its own brains out... either way there'd be no golden egg for SMD. Then they'll be looking for a tenant farmer to grow 20 acres of cabbages. I'd say those that care about this club need to engage with this process by fronting up to SMD and the WCFC board, not soon, but NOW. How long can this fandango last? I wish the club well, but I don't want SMD building retail parks on greenfileds. Hpwever, you supporters only have until 2013 at the Lane, so forget the pointless sham of maintaining "appearances" and just get on with salvaging football in Worcester from what remains of all this bungled "commercial wizardry".

Avante says...
7:58pm Tue 7 Sep 10

Its not a pretense to keep SMD sweet, the club dont need SMD, in fact they would love to be free of SMD, but they can't get out of it, not until 2017.
A legal battle would force administration, after all, the £1.75 million wont be made available to the club until 2013, when they vacate SGL.
This will never get past planning stage anyway, there is simply no rationale that suggests it could. The business plan seems to be based on the PCT being the tenant of the office building, and there will now be no PCT, so thats gone!
I'll send you some further info when I get home later

DermotItis says...
10:47pm Tue 7 Sep 10

Why am I not surprised?

A fine old club when run by a bunch of Walter Mitty's has ended up broke and without a stadium.

I said this would happen last year, but still the board continues down this ridiculous Nunnery Way, pie-in-the-sky scheme.

Find another site in Worcester and invest what is left in some form of building. Nothing else makes sense!

Avante says...
8:40am Wed 8 Sep 10

They can't, the board is contractually obliged to work with SMD, and put every reasonable endeavour into the Nunnery Way plan. We have a situation where the contractual agreements are forcing the Directors to operate in a way that is detrimental to the business, that can't be right. However the cost of challenging contractual agreements could run into six figures!
SMD have WCFC by the short and curlies, thanks to the amazing negotiating skills of David Boddy! The club is in total turmoil, and I personally would take the administration route, if only to break these contracts!

brooksider says...
9:27am Wed 8 Sep 10

Avante wrote:
They can't, the board is contractually obliged to work with SMD, and put every reasonable endeavour into the Nunnery Way plan. We have a situation where the contractual agreements are forcing the Directors to operate in a way that is detrimental to the business, that can't be right. However the cost of challenging contractual agreements could run into six figures! SMD have WCFC by the short and curlies, thanks to the amazing negotiating skills of David Boddy! The club is in total turmoil, and I personally would take the administration route, if only to break these contracts!
Dave Boddy was certainly out of his depth with the negotiations, both with Careys & St Modwen, but any agreement he made with SMD must have been run passed or approved by the project leader, David Hallmark.
Why did an experienced local solicitor let the club, of which he was a director, enter such a punative contract?

Wayne Henley says...
8:31am Thu 9 Sep 10

brooksider wrote:
Avante wrote:
They can't, the board is contractually obliged to work with SMD, and put every reasonable endeavour into the Nunnery Way plan. We have a situation where the contractual agreements are forcing the Directors to operate in a way that is detrimental to the business, that can't be right. However the cost of challenging contractual agreements could run into six figures! SMD have WCFC by the short and curlies, thanks to the amazing negotiating skills of David Boddy! The club is in total turmoil, and I personally would take the administration route, if only to break these contracts!
Dave Boddy was certainly out of his depth with the negotiations, both with Careys & St Modwen, but any agreement he made with SMD must have been run passed or approved by the project leader, David Hallmark.
Why did an experienced local solicitor let the club, of which he was a director, enter such a punative contract?
I think you'll find the latter only stepped out of the shadows and became a director when a group of local well respected people had been agreed to join the board. The decision had been made by the old board to allow Barry Ward, Derek Jones etc on to the board and this included a drains up review of finances and the NW project. Then strangely after the leaving the meeting the next day a totally different statement was agreed was released and the deal was off. The also had a new director who was the self proclaimed Project Leader. Then when it was clear any challenge to the board from these rebels was over he left the board. Worcester News had been given all the evidence at the time and chose to do nothing with it and took the SAFE route over and over again. Only now that the new board have distanced themselves from the former have the WN decided to do a 180 degree turn. DISGRACEFUL!!!


Most popular


Get Adobe Flash player

Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »

Local Businesses